The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Royal Assent

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform Members that Royal Assent has been signified to the Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 and to the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001. These Acts became law on 2 July 2001.

Assembly: Unparliamentary Language

Mr Speaker: On Tuesday 26 June Dr Paisley raised a point of order regarding language used by the then First Minister during a personal statement by the Minister for Regional Development, Mr Campbell, the previous day. Dr Paisley asked for a ruling on whether the remark was unparliamentary.
I have examined Hansard and consulted with officials on the practice in other places. I believe that there was some ambiguity and that the then First Minister attempted at the time to correct his remark, but that this was not recorded correctly in the Official Report of the debate. A corrigendum was issued with the report of yesterday’s proceedings.
The use of the word "coward" is regarded as unparliamentary in other places, and it seems to me that it cannot be regarded as anything different in this place. While there may be some question as to whether this is the case when it is modified by the adjective "political", I have decided that the word "coward", whether or not modified by an adjective, should be regarded as unparliamentary. However, in the absence of a previous ruling on this specific term, and in view of the fact that the First Minister attempted to qualify his remark, I do not propose to take any retrospective action. I emphasise that in future the use of the word "coward" will be regarded as unparliamentary language, whether modified by an adjective or not, and any Member using it will be asked to withdraw it.
Yet again I must take the opportunity to urge Members to reflect on the tenor and content of their remarks. It does no service to Members or their constituents if business cannot be conducted in a seemly manner. I will not hesitate to take firm action against any Member who wilfully and persistently continues to ignore these directions or any other directions from the Speaker. I trust that the matter is clear.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You have shown remarkable leniency —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has not been called and therefore will not be heard. [Interruption]. Order. The Member has not been called and will not be heard.

Mr Sammy Wilson: You have shown particular —

Mr Speaker: Order. I call the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Mr McGimpsey.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: rose. —[Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. It is perfectly clear that the Member wishes to be thrown out. I am therefore suspending proceedings.
The sitting was suspended at 10.36 am
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Mr Speaker: The Member who wished to make himself heard has received correspondence from me. I hope that he will give it due consideration.
I have received —

Mr Sammy Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since you have —

Mr Speaker: I am not calling the Member to make a point of order. I have corresponded with him, and I asked him —

Mr Sammy Wilson: You asked me to give consideration —

Mr Speaker: Order. Due consideration requires some reflection, preferably in silence. I trust that the Member will give the letter due consideration. The Member will resume his seat.

North/South Ministerial Council: Inland Waterways

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council meeting on waterways which was held on 27 June 2001.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The third North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on inland waterways took place in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, on Wednesday 27 June 2001.
Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Dr Farren and I represented the Northern Ireland Administration. The Irish Government were represented by SíledeValera TD, Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. I am making this report on behalf of myself and Dr Farren, who has approved the report.
The meeting opened with a progress report from the chief executive of Waterways Ireland, MrJohnMartin. The Council noted that there had been disruption to work programmes due to restricted access on account of the threat of foot-and-mouth disease but that operations are now returning to normal. Since my last report to the Assembly, three major projects on the Shannon navigation at Limerick, Ballinasloe and Boyle have been completed, opening up those venues to boats for the first time. In Northern Ireland, work has been carried out to replace the lock gates at Movanagher on the Lower Bann navigation, and two public jetties at Devenish on Lough Erne have recently been refurbished.
The Council visited Waterways Ireland’s temporary headquarters in Enniskillen and met some of the staff there. Overall, 220 professional, technical and industrial staff have now been transferred to Waterways Ireland, while a further 28 administrative staff have been temporarily seconded to the organisation. The recruitment process for the directors’ posts commenced recently.
The Council approved Waterways Ireland’s plans for promotion and marketing of inland waterways. Work is progressing on the development of a three-year strategy to promote the hire boat sector on the island as a separate niche market. A working group has been set up with representation from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Bord Fáilte and the hire boat sectors on both sides of the border to take this forward. A new brochure will be published shortly. Waterways Ireland will also prepare a longer-term marketing and promotion strategy in consultation with the cross-border tourism company, Tourism Ireland Ltd and other relevant stakeholders.
A promotions advisory group will be set up with representation from community, commercial and private user groups, as well as the tourism sector. The Council approved the setting up of a new marketing and communications directorate by Waterways Ireland to deliver these important marketing and promotions functions.
The Council received a report on the updated feasibility study on the Ulster Canal, which has been carried out by ESB International and Ferguson McIlveen. A number of options for restoration were assessed, and economic appraisals were undertaken. The preferred option recommended by the consultants and endorsed by Waterways Ireland is for restoration of the canal with six-metre- wide locks along a modified route that would link into the River Blackwater at the Lough Neagh end and the River Finn at the Lough Erne end.
The updated capital cost for the construction works is £89 million at 2000 prices. The construction phase of the project is estimated to take about seven years to complete. When inflation is taken into account, the final construction costs will be significantly higher than £89 million. The economic appraisal for the preferred option indicates a net present cost of £39 million at 2000 prices, discounting the projected cash flows over the estimated life of the project using the 6% discount rate currently applicable to UK public sector projects.
The Council recognised that there are non-monetary benefits that have to be considered. The Council noted Waterways Ireland’s assessment of the feasibility study report. Now the two Governments must consider the report and determine the way forward. An executive summary of the consultants’ report will be released to inform and promote public debate on the issues involved.
The Council approved both the selection process for recruitment of the chief executive officer and the draft strategic development plan for Foras na Gaeilge.
The Council agreed to meet again in sectoral format in autumn 2001.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome the Minister’s statement and would like to record the Committee’s pleasure that, despite some disruption caused by foot-and- mouth disease, a number of projects have been completed on both sides of the border. We are also glad that staffing levels have improved. Can the Minister tell us when Waterways Ireland’s full complement of 380 employees, which he mentioned recently, will be achieved, and when the appointment of directors will be completed?
It is also good to see that the Council visited the temporary headquarters of Waterways Ireland in Enniskillen. Can the Minister tell us what stage the arrangements for the permanent headquarters are at? I am also glad that preparations for the three-year development strategy for the hire boat sector are underway. Can the Minister tell us the timescale for the completion of these?
It is good to see the preparation that is being done on the longer-term marketing and promotions strategy in consultation with Tourism Ireland Ltd. One of the key issues emerging from the Committee’s current inquiry into cultural tourism and the arts is that, to date, we have not been as effective as we could be in promoting and marketing our attractions. The Committee would like to know what priority will be accorded to this strategy as well as to the establishment of the promotions advisory group and the new marketing and communications directorate. We see this as being key to the developments in this area.
The Committee is glad to know that ESB International —

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is an opportunity for questions to the Minister on his statement. It is not an opportunity for a further statement from the Committee on its views on these matters.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I have asked four questions, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I know. It is an opportunity for Members to ask the Minister one question. The Minister is not required to answer more than one question. I must prevail on the Member to restrict himself to simply asking questions.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence. I have one more important question.

Mr Speaker: I will permit the Member to ask the question, but I am rather struck by how teachers and former teachers seem to be coming to the end of term. Need I say more?

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Fortunately, there is no detention at this stage. With regard to the report of Ferguson McIlveen and the feasibility study on the Ulster Canal, on which the Committee welcomes progress, how will the Minister proceed with his consideration? How quickly does he expect to arrive at a way forward? How does he intend to address the resources issue, which the Committee considers to be important, as does the Minister?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I will respond to as many of these points as possible. Staff recruitment is under way. Waterways Ireland currently employs 220 staff, has 28 seconded staff, and is rapidly moving towards the full complement of 380. There have been difficulties, not least suspension, which slowed down the rate and process of recruitment. That has prevented Waterways Ireland from reaching its full staff complement, although it is working as quickly as it can.
Although I do not have a specific date for when Waterways Ireland expects to be fully manned, the process is being taken seriously and is being dealt with as a matter of urgency. It should not spin out over one or two years. I can write to the Member to give him a better appreciation of it.
The headquarters will be in Enniskillen, with 70 full- time jobs. The selection of a site is being undertaken by Construction Services, which is acting in an advisory capacity to Waterways Ireland. There are seven proposals on five sites, from which a shortlist of three will be drawn up. Those three proposals will go to a full feasibility study, which will include planning. The decision on the final site will be made after this process.
The Member mentioned the marketing of Waterways Ireland. I cannot give a specific date for that, but I can give the Member the chronology as it has built up. Water-based tourism is one of the prime raisons d’être for reinvesting in and reinvigorating our inland waterways and canals. The potential is there, but there is no point in doing all this work if we do not promote it and go after the market.
Marketing is a matter for consideration by Waterways Ireland, which has decided to appoint a director for promotions and is currently in discussions with Bord Fáilte, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the new tourist body, Tourism Ireland Ltd. Waterways Ireland is also working with local communities and local commercial sectors — boat hire companies, for example — and is dealing with the stakeholders as they bring forward a promotional strategy for internal and international marketing.
An updated feasibility study on the Ulster Canal has been conducted, and the cost at 2000 prices is £89 million. Because of the lifetime of the canal, construction will take seven years by traditional methods and with traditional funding. The price, therefore, will rise. Roughly half of the canal is in Northern Ireland and the rest is in the Irish Republic, so the arrangement is for an almost fifty-fifty split in relation to finding the capital. There are, however, opportunities for attracting private finance into that investment, and it is important that we explore those avenues as we move forward. There is good business potential in the recreation of the Ulster canal system, and I have no doubt that private finance can be attracted. We must look at that in more depth.
There are hidden benefits — for example, in targeting social need. Canals go through rural areas and areas that suffer from low economic activity. The experience in the Irish Republic, on the mainland and in Europe is that this type of development in such areas greatly enhances local communities.
There are other factors to be considered, but the feasibility study is based primarily on the previous study for a six-metre-wide canal to allow use by existing boats on Lough Erne. That is the next step.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. Can he give us some detail of the approved plan by Waterways Ireland for promotion and marketing? When will the new brochure on the hire boat sector on both sides of the border be available? Will the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee be given a preview of any promotional material? In the past, I have seen brochures produced by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board that did not live up to the standards expected of a major tourist organisation. Will the Committee have any input into the new marketing strategy?
Finally, I express my concern at the illegal exclusion of our Ministers from the cross-border Ministerial Council meetings.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: In my response to Mr ONeill, I dealt with the promotion and marketing of Waterways Ireland. As I said, that process is under way. The short-term and longer-term marketing and promotion are being looked at with Tourism Ireland, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Bord Fáilte and the relevant stakeholders. I have no doubt that brochures will be produced. Waterways Ireland is a stand-alone body, answering to the North/ South Ministerial Council and, therefore, to the Assembly. I have no doubt that arrangements can be made to allow Committee input into the promotions strategy.
I hear what you say about previous strategies not always living up to what had been anticipated. Given the history of the last 25 years, it was a difficult sell. Matters are now improving greatly. There is huge potential, and, as I said in an earlier answer, canals act as economic generators. Canals are a benefit to the community as a whole and especially to the communities situated close to them.

Mr Speaker: Order. I encourage all Members to address the House through the Chair. One needs to remind oneself of that from time to time.

Mrs Joan Carson: I welcome the Minister’s report, and I hope that he enjoyed his day in the centre of the universe — Enniskillen, one of the most beautiful places.
I note that three major projects have been completed on the Shannon. Are there any major projects for the Erne system in the pipeline? I am delighted that the two jetties at Devenish have been refurbished. The work was necessary on that important site, which gets a lot of traffic. Will other jetties on the lough be refurbished and extended?
The Lough Erne system is experiencing increased pressure from boat traffic coming from the Republic of Ireland. Can the Minister give details of the number of craft entering the system from the Shannon waterways? Is there a monitoring system in place? I ask because of the increased pressure on the public jetties.

Mr Speaker: Order. I find teachers difficult to control, particularly as regards the number of questions they tend to ask. It is an occupational hazard. Could the Member restrict her questions?

Mrs Joan Carson: I have finished.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Three major projects were completed recently at Limerick, Ballinasloe and Boyle. As regards Lough Erne, six public jetties at Muckross, Bellanaleck, Magho, Inishdavar, Devenish East and Devenish West have been completely refurbished. A new floating jetty has been placed on the Lower Bann at Toome, and the gates at Movanagher Lough were replaced recently. There is an ongoing maintenance and capital programme for waterways, and it applies to Lough Erne because Upper and Lower Lough Erne are an integral part of the system. Those matters are under way as a matter of course.
Mrs Carson asked about projects in Northern Ireland. I referred to the Ulster Canal and the upgrade feasibility study that is now with us. The executive summary will be given to the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee and placed in the Library. I announced recently that we are conducting a study into the Lagan navigation system. That is another major part of the scheme. If the River Lagan navigation system were completed, with navigation through Lough Neagh, it would connect Belfast, through the Ulster Canal, to the Shannon waterways. That is an exciting prospect, offering huge potential for tourism earnings.

Mr David Hilditch: The Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee, having voiced concerns about feasibility studies relating to tourism in Northern Ireland, would like to ask the Minister to indicate when the report on the Ulster Canal project will be available. We do not want to see another Navan Fort situation or the similar problems that are found at many other tourist attractions.
How many are on the working group set up to consider the promotion and marketing of inland waterways? Will the Minister give his assessment of the projects completed to date in view of the major developments that have taken place in the Republic compared with the minor works in Northern Ireland? Did all completed projects meet their budgetary targets?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I have referred to the issues that Mr Hilditch raises. The executive summary of the canal report will be available to the Committee and will be placed in the Library. It reached us last week and will be a matter for discussion between the Committee and myself. It is a major project, so it is important that the Committee put forward its views.
The Member asked about completed projects. I gave a sense of what has happened. We must understand that there has been major investment in canals and inland waterways in the Irish Republic over a number of years and that they have a major system in operation now. The Republic needs to work on six road bridges in order to bring the Royal Canal back into operation. That work is beginning immediately. The Republic’s system is advanced; the system here is not. As Members know, nothing was spent on canals and inland navigation in Northern Ireland during the past 25 years. We are starting from a lower base, which means that large amounts of capital must be found. That is why it is important that Waterways Ireland and the Department, in consultation with the Committee, consider the question of resources more broadly than just relying on Assembly Budgets. It will not be feasible to find the money from the Assembly Budget under the current financial restrictions.
Waterways Ireland is recruiting a director of promotions. The body has also assembled a group of stakeholders in the area — such as Lough Erne boat owners, other users and local councils — who are looking for help from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Bord Fáilte and Tourism Ireland Ltd. The group wants to promote a strategy, and anyone is welcome to contribute good ideas. As I said to Mrs Nelis, I will ensure that the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee has an opportunity to make a contribution to that process.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I am definitely not a teacher — I never was.
Canals are certainly part of our heritage, and the restoration of canals must be applauded. My local council, Strabane District Council, is carrying out a feasibility study on the restoration of the canal. I want to let the Minister know that there is life in the north-west and that we are looking for funds for the restoration of Strabane Canal.
What steps has the Minister taken to resolve the problem of the proposed development of a footbridge that will create an obstacle to navigation on the Newry Canal at Scarva? The creation of such obstacles must be avoided if we are to encourage and promote the wider use of our inland waterways.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I note what Mr McMenamin said about the Strabane Canal and the north-west. To be frank, I must admit that I was not aware that there had been a canal in Strabane.
The Member referred to a footbridge at Scarva on the Newry-Portadown Canal, which was an important navigation canal in the nineteenth century. That canal is on the list for refurbishment. It was an important link to Portadown and was part of the network of canals. I had no input into the decision on the construction of the footbridge at Scarva. My Department was not asked for permission, and it is not clear to me what our interest in that was. In examining such matters, we would consider it a retrograde step to build a bridge over a canal, without allowing sufficient space underneath it to allow for the navigation of boats. Questions must be asked about that.
As I understand it, the Newry-Portadown Canal was listed by the Environment and Heritage Service, which may have been an extreme step at the time. However, that step would seem not to have worked if they have allowed the construction of a bridge over the canal that does not permit navigation, even though they knew — as everybody does — about the remit of Waterways Ireland and the interest of this House in the reinstatement of our canal network.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire ar leibhéal amháin ach ar leibhéal eile tá mé míshásta leis. I welcome the report and the fact that the meeting took place, but, again, I want to record my dissatisfaction and protest at the continued unlawful exclusion of Sinn Féin Ministers from North/South Council meetings.
I want to concentrate on the feasibility study on the Ulster Canal and on the crucial matter of facilitating and promoting public debate on the issue. I was concerned at the comments made by the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mrs Carson) about the pressure on Lough Erne created by traffic from the Republic. I would have thought that there would be a universal welcome for visitors to Lough Erne. Fermanagh District Council has a progressive attitude towards that issue.
When will the executive summary of the consultants’ report be released into the public domain? That is necessary for meaningful public debate to take place. Further to the question asked by the Committee Chairperson, Mr ONeill, can the Minister give preliminary details of how that project could be financed by the two Governments?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: We will make the executive summary available immediately to members of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee, and it will be placed in the Library. That will be a step forward. We have just received the report, which is very technical and comprises several volumes, and we are still trying to assimilate it. The executive summary is the first step towards doing that, and its contents will be shared immediately.
It is important that we have a public debate on the matter, so that people can get an appreciation of the importance of the scheme, the economic benefits that will flow from the recreation of the canals network, and the potential for water-based tourism from which big earnings can be made. Other countries that have developed their canal networks have profited in that way, and that is the raison d’être of Waterways Ireland. It wants to create a network that will attract visitors, and we will all benefit from that. We want to ensure that facilities such as Lough Erne are used and that visitors are attracted to these areas. Mr McElduff may have had made another point, but I have answered most of his questions.
We have not yet addressed the issue of finance. The study states that the revenue consequences will be positive — in other words, once the canal is operational, the revenue from it will more than take care of planned maintenance, renewals and refurbishment. The capital cost is high — £89 million at last year’s prices — and we should be a wee bit more imaginative rather than simply taking the traditional funding route. There are means of attracting private finance investment for such a scheme.

Mr Jim Wilson: I congratulate the Minister, his Department and Lisburn Borough Council on the recent world canals conference, which was held for three days in Dublin and one day in Northern Ireland. They made an excellent contribution, and our officials and Lisburn Borough Council have much to be pleased about. It was an excellent few days. I attended the conference with the Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, Mr ONeill.
Is the Minister aware of the generally held view that those employed in the Lough Erne boat hire businesses are losing out in the tourism market, principally because of the exchange rate? For the most part, tourists are hiring their boats in the South before immediately travelling north to Upper and Lower Lough Erne. Is he aware — this has been referred to already — of the shortage of public jetties and private moorings in Lough Erne? That is another handicap for the tourist industry north of the border.
Will the Minister address the matter of ownership of the foreshore? The foreshore is the portion of land surrounding both lakes that was exposed when, some years ago, the water level of the lake decreased considerably. I understand that only 9% of the foreshore is owned by adjacent landowners. I can only assume that the other 91% is owned by the Crown, and that raises questions with regard to Waterways Ireland.
Will the Minister also examine the matter of ownership of the bedrock and soil of the lake —the portion beyond the foreshore? I draw that to the Minister’s attention because the handicaps created by foot-and-mouth disease and the exchange rate have this year created additional problems for those involved in the boat-hire business in Northern Ireland, on top of their existing problems. When those who work in the boat-hire industry attempt to develop their own businesses, they are being asked to hand over large sums of money for foreshore land. Indeed, if we were to go further and try to put a breakwater into the lake, the owner of the bedrock would be looking for thousands of pounds. Is the Minister aware that Northern Ireland boat-hirers are considerably handicapped because of that? If not, will he raise the matters with Waterways Ireland?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: There is a cost difference between hiring boats in the Irish Republic and hiring them in Northern Ireland. It is primarily to do with the exchange rate and the disparity between the punt and the pound. There are advantages in hiring boats in the Irish Republic. However, set against that is that fact that anyone who wants to tour that area must drive the boat up to Lough Erne. It is a case of swings and roundabouts.
I am not clear about how I could alleviate the problem. The exchange rate and the differential between the pound and the punt are beyond the responsibility of my Department — and, indeed, of the House. It is important that we consider what else can be done to compensate other areas. First, we must get a sense of the scope of the problem. There is always anecdotal evidence of the problem, but Waterways Ireland could usefully undertake to establish its size and scope.
There has been a lack of investment over a number of years in jetties on Lough Erne. Waterways Ireland is looking at the issue and seeking to make investment. To date, six public jetties on Lough Erne have been completely refurbished. There is ongoing capital investment in our waterways.
I understand that the issue regarding the ownership of the foreshore of Lower Lough Erne came about because the depth of the water in the lough was lowered some time ago, leaving a portion of land between the old and new waterlines. My understanding is that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development owns the bulk of the foreshore, although it has sold off some of the foreshore, which is now in private ownership. I will ask further questions on the matter and get details about the actual ownership of the foreshore. I am not clear about who owns the bedrock and the soil beneath the water. I will find out and write to the Member.

Mr Jim Shannon: The Minister said that the construction costs for restoration of the Ulster Canal would rise above £89 million. Considering that the economic appraisal for the preferred option is based on a figure of £39 million, how will the Minister ensure that costs are kept down, and how will he ensure that the project does not go over budget, inevitably creating a drain on the public purse?
What involvement has Waterways Ireland had with local businesses to develop tourism? Has sufficient discussion taken place with local people, and have the needs of disabled been considered?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As far as Waterways Ireland is concerned, the promotion strategy will take stakeholders — specifically the responsible tourist promotion bodies — into account. Local businesses are important stakeholders, and their views will be taken into account. Disability access to waterways is important, and over the past 12 months my Department has invested in construction work and will continue to do so. There has been underinvestment in that area for many years, but the issue now takes priority. The cost is £89 million at 2000 prices, but that cost will rise when inflation is taken into account.
Against that, because Governments do what Governments do, and the Civil Service does what the Civil Service does, we must also consider the estimated life of the canal, which is 56 years. There is a discount rate for the total cost, and we end up with a net present cost. If allowance is made for that, for income generated during the construction period and for maintenance costs, the net present cost is about £39 million, which makes the Ulster Canal unviable. However, that does not mean that it should not go ahead. We have considered private finance and private investment for the Ulster Canal. Economic activity along the canal network, as enjoyed in other countries, will be attractive to business and private investment. I am convinced that we will not need to meet the full amount of capital cost.
We must be imaginative and look to the market. There are ways and means of doing that. An estimate of inflation can be incorporated into the cost, although I cannot govern the future. Completing the project on time and on cost is a construction management problem, and a proper investigation should be conducted to ensure that the work includes everything that is required.

Mr John Dallat: As a teacher, I promise to be brief. My limited knowledge of local history informs me that there has been no serious dredging on the Lower Bann since the 1930s. I accept the Minister’s suggestion that there will be enormous benefits for people on that side of Lough Neagh if the proposals go ahead. Can he ensure that the Lower Bann will be shipshape for the visitors who will undoubtedly travel further north than they have in the past?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Lower Bann is a navigable waterway and falls within the remit of Waterways Ireland. It will be treated in the same way as other waterways, in that capital will be invested as and when it is required or becomes available. Work and investment are ongoing, and Waterways Ireland will make cases for various areas, including the Lower Bann.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Can the Minister tell us how many miles of the Ulster Canal are in Northern Ireland and how many miles are in the Irish Republic? Have the 220 people who have been relocated to Enniskillen been subject to fair employment legislation, as required by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is used by every agency that employs people in Northern Ireland? What is the religious balance among those 220 people, and how many are likely to be employed, bearing in mind that an all-Ireland body is being planted in Enniskillen? Given the historic nature of Enniskillen people may have some response to make to the idea of an all-Ireland body being planted there.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Fair employment practices will be followed at all times in recruitment, and equality statements have been produced by Waterways Ireland and will be adopted as equality schemes. I do not know what stage the schemes are at; they may already have been adopted.
The 28 staff who were seconded to Waterways Ireland came from other Government bodies and have been subject to standard Government recruitment practices. The 70 staff in Enniskillen will also be subject to standard recruitment practices, including fair employment practices. Everything that should be done under the terms of the agreement and of section 75 will be done.
I do not know the length of the canal in miles, but I will ask, and I will forward the information. Roughly half the length of the Ulster Canal lies in Northern Ireland, and roughly half lies in the Irish Republic. The arrangement, as far as Waterways Ireland is concerned, is that we bear the capital costs in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic’s Government bear the capital cost in the Irish Republic. Running costs are based on a percentage. Last year, our running costs were 9% of the total budget. That percentage will vary as more staff are taken on from, for example, the Rivers Agency to take on the work of managing the navigations in Northern Ireland. Next year, Northern Ireland’s share of the budget will rise to 12%.

North/South Ministerial Council: Special EU Programmes Body

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council for the special EU programmes sector held on 20 June 2001.

Mr Mark Durkan: Mr Dermot Nesbitt and I attended the sectoral meeting on 20 June 2001. The Irish Government were represented by Mr Charlie McCreevy TD, Minister for Finance. This report has been approved by Mr Nesbitt and is made on his behalf.
This was the fourth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in this format. Although the North/ South Ministerial Council in the special EU programmes sector met just over two months ago, on 9 April, this meeting was needed to endorse the Peace II programme complement that was agreed by the monitoring committee on 15 June and had to be sent to the European Commission by 22 June. We also needed to set out a clear programme of work for the body over the summer months for the implementation of the Peace II programme. The delivery of the programme depends on putting in place the final arrangements for its implementation. It is vital that that should happen quickly. The other substantive item on the agenda was a review of progress on implementing the common chapter. We also needed to set out a clear programme of work for the summer in that area.
The chief executive of the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) reported on progress made by the body since the meeting on 9 April. The report covered a range of topics, including progress to date on the selection of intermediary funding bodies, the development of local strategy partnerships, the current position on gap funding in Northern Ireland and accommodation issues. The chief executive advised that four local strategy partnerships had been established to date and that work was continuing to establish local strategy partnerships in the remaining district council areas. The Council noted the progress made by the body on those matters.
The Council underlined, as it had done at previous meetings, the importance of the role of the body, and the EU programmes coming under its remit, in contributing to the development of peace and reconciliation and maximising social and economic benefits on the island, not least in the border areas.
The Council noted that between 1995 and the end of the current round of structural fund programmes in 2006, the European Union will have contributed about 1·3 billion euros to North/South programmes. It will continue to play an important role in support of the peace process.
The first paper tabled at the meeting reviewed the progress made to date and outlined the next steps towards implementation of the common chapter contained in the Northern Ireland structural funds plan and the National Development Plan for Ireland. That set out a strategic framework for building on and developing North/South and wider co-operation across a broad range of sectors and activities in the context of those plans. The paper highlighted the fact that, under the Belfast Agreement, North/South co-operation has been placed on a new basis through the establishment of the North/South Ministerial Council and the new institutional framework outlined in strand two. In this context, the North/South Ministerial Council provides a strategic focus for taking forward implementation of the common chapter. Moreover, the SEUPB has been given a statutory mandate to monitor and promote implementation of the common chapter under the direction of the North/South Ministerial Council.
The Council welcomed as timely a report by the two Finance Departments on progress to date in taking forward the co-operative actions outlined in the common chapter. This report showed that while commitment to implementation of the common chapter had been clearly stated, there was a need for greater clarity on a number of the issues involved. In order to ensure the maximum effectiveness of the common chapter in delivering practical benefits both North and South, and to set out more clearly the policy and administrative framework within which the SEUPB will perform its important role in monitoring and promoting implementation of the document, the report pointed to the need for a clearly defined action plan to address the issues involved. Accordingly, the report recommended the establishment of a working group, chaired by the two Finance Departments, to review the issues identified and to bring forward proposals for action to the next North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting in this format. The Council noted the progress to date on the implementation of the common chapter and approved the establishment of the working group as recommended in that report.
The Council was advised that the Peace II monitoring committee had agreed the programme complement at its meeting on 15June 2001 and that this completed the final stage of development of the programme. The complement, which was prepared by the SEUPB as managing authority for the programme, contains detailed information on how the funds allocated will be spent. The Council endorsed the approval of the programme complement and agreed that it should be sent to the European Commission for information, as required by structural funds regulation.
The Council also noted with satisfaction the progress made to date on the implementation of the Peace II programme. The programme complement apart, there are a number of associated stages that must be completed to enable full implementation of the programme. These include the appointment of intermediary funding bodies (IFBs) to deliver elements of the programme and the development of the local strategy partnerships in Northern Ireland. It was agreed, given the key role that IFBs had to play in the delivery of the programme, that priority should be given to concluding contract negotiations with IFBs and that a deadline of 20 July should be set.
The Council received an overview on the progress to date in relation to spend and closure of the current Peace I and INTERREG II programmes. Under EU regulations, all funding under both programmes is required to be fully expended by 31 December 2001. The Council noted that overall expenditure currently stands at 86% for Peace I and 89% for INTERREG II and that the SEUPB would provide a further progress report on the implementation of both programmes at the next North/ South Ministerial Council meeting in this sector. The Council also agreed that the body should provide monthly reports to the two Finance Departments on the closure of the programmes.
The Council received a report on progress made to date on negotiations involving the two Finance Departments, the body, and the European Commission on INTERREG III programme proposals. The Council was advised that the European Commission’s comments on the draft INTERREG IIIA programme had been forwarded to the Northern Ireland and Southern authorities in May and that a meeting had taken place in Brussels on 1 June involving the European Commission, the two Finance Departments and the programmes body.
The Council was advised that it is planned to submit a revised programme to the European Commission by mid-August and that it is expected that negotiations on this programme will be completed in the early autumn. The Council noted the current position of the negotiations and stressed the need to ensure that these were progressed quickly so that the programme could be implemented on the ground as soon as possible. Given the delay in getting this programme up and running, the Council indicated that it hoped to hear about significant progress in this area at the next North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting in this format.
The Council received a report that provided an update on the staffing and recruitment position for the implementation body. The Council was advised that the SEUPB is currently engaged in a recruitment exercise to fill the five posts that were approved by the North/South Ministerial Council at the sectoral meeting in April and four other posts that were approved by the Council in the initial staffing structure for the body on 16 June 2000. It is hoped that these appointments will be made in the near future.
The Council was also advised that the exercise to carry out a full analysis and evaluation of the proposed staffing structure for the body was ongoing. Although some work remains to be done, it is expected that this will be completed by the end of the summer. The Council agreed that in the meantime the body could proceed to recruit a further 19 staff to replace lower-tier staff, within the staffing levels agreed in the initial structure, who are currently on secondment or who are on short-term contracts with the body. It was acknowledged that recruitment of these posts now, followed by recruitment of second-tier management posts after completion of the full evaluation, would allow for a phased replacement, which would avoid any sudden depletion of staff and should assist in a more organised transfer of knowledge.
The Council noted that the cost of these staff would be met from within the approved budget for the body and urged the Finance Departments to work with the body to ensure that the whole staffing exercise is completed as soon as possible.
It was agreed that the Council would meet again in this format in Northern Ireland in October 2001. The exact venue for the meeting has yet to be confirmed.
The Council agreed the text of a joint communiqué, which was issued following the meeting, and a copy of this has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s statement on this meeting, which brings us up to date with the European programmes. It is important that we move swiftly to implement this because of the gaps that have arisen in funding.
Is the Minister satisfied that the arrangements that have been put in place will allow the funds to be drawn down and wholly utilised? When does the Minister plan to put the money into use? The report notes the establishment of a working group to examine aspects of the common chapter. Precisely what issues are to be addressed by this group? Will the Minister assure the Assembly that this will not introduce a delay in the distribution of funds that are much needed on the ground?
I raise the issue of gap funding because it is becoming clear that gap funding applications from a number of the most disadvantaged areas have been refused, and a number of projects have collapsed as a result. Is the Minister aware of this? Can he do anything to ensure that the gap funding will be put in place to prevent schemes from falling apart?
Finally, why has only 86% of the Peace II money been spent at this date?

Mr Mark Durkan: I recognise the Committee’s keen interest in the whole area of EU structural funds, not least in respect of the Peace programme.
As regards a timetable, the fact that the programme complement has been agreed by the monitoring committee allows us now to take the next step of preparing to call for applications for the funding. We also need to complete work on the contracts for the intermediary funding bodies, so we are working towards seeing the first allocations from the PeaceII fund being issued in the autumn.
We appreciate that that means we will be developing some of these arrangements over the summer. We want to take steps to make sure that people are fully informed — as people’s patterns are not very regular during the summer — but we also share the sense of urgency articulated by Mr Molloy.
The work that is to take place on the common chapter should not in any way delay any of the necessary work, particularly in bringing forward the Peace II programme. The cross-border provisions in the Peace II programme are not necessarily predicated or dependent on the development of the commitments in the common chapter, although we want to bring both forward together.
The report that I referred to in my statement identified several difficulties in realising the prospectus that is common to both the previous common chapter and the present common chapter plans. The working group is trying to recognise those difficulties and to find solutions to them. However, that should not hold up any of the work that we need to undertake to get Peace II on-stream.
With regard to gap funding, it will do no harm to remind Members that when we were bringing in the interim funding arrangements, groups were lobbying us and saying that £3million was needed for gap funding in this financial year. The arrangements that we have put in place for the six months to October of this year have seen a total of £10 million in interim funding being awarded. Therefore the current arrangements have provided £10 million in gap funding for that six-month period. That compares well with the total of £9million gap funding that we issued in the last financial year, and it certainly compares favourably with the £3million that the lobby groups asked for.
As Mr Molloy said, not everyone was successful in those applications. Departments had to make a judgement on the basis of Peace II criteria. Decisions can be queried and subsequently reviewed. People who have been unsuccessful in gap funding applications under these arrangements can reapply when the Department of Finance and Personnel calls for applications in the new round for the full programme. Anyone who has been successful in gap funding applications also has to make a full and proper application in the new round.

Mr Derek Hussey: Mr Speaker, I will try not to give you the problems that you had earlier with an ex-teacher.
Will the Minister put more meat on the bones of the procedures for selection of the intermediary funding bodies?
I agree with the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, who has already referred to the gap funding scenario. Will the Minister inform the House of the percentage of groups that have been unsuccessful? The Minister told the House, in his answer to Mr Molloy, how much money has been distributed, but it would be useful to know the percentage of groups that have been successful and unsuccessful. It would also be useful if the criteria or scoring system used for groups that appeal decisions were made available to all groups, so that they could ascertain the likelihood of the success of an appeal.
The Minister is aware of particular concerns in the Unionist community about the effectiveness of Peace I. Can the Minister confirm that those concerns have been addressed in the proposed implementation of the Peace II programme, together with an increased sustainability requirement? As Peace I comes to an end in which there appears to have been some back-end loading of projects, which explains the 14% still to be distributed, will the Minister assure the House that the end monitoring of the entire Peace programme will include a review of the effectiveness of Peace I in the Unionist community? A front-end loading of Peace II may be required to redress that balance.

Mr Mark Durkan: All Members will recognise that there were delays in getting aspects of Peace I up and running, which meant that the spending rate ran behind in some respects. However, steps are being taken to ensure that all spending is completed before the end of this year.
As well as the lessons taught us by Peace I, the Department of Finance and Personnel is trying to recognise the issues that the Member refers to concerning uptake of the programme. It is essential that all sections of the community have an equal opportunity to benefit from the programme. That is why — and I repeat this for the umpteenth time in the House — under Peace II, horizontal principles have been adopted and are inherent in all aspects of the programme, and those principles address equality and balance considerations.
Members of the monitoring committee also expressed concerns about these issues. The programme complement has been agreed by the monitoring committee not only on the basis of some of the commitments given about the programme complement, but also because of the significance of the horizontal principles.
Decisions can only be made on the basis of applications received. Applications received from areas or groups that meet the criteria will be well favoured. Money cannot simply be withheld on the basis that other applications were not received. As we know from our experience of Peace I, we need to make sure that we have a reasonable allocation and reasonable drawdown rates. Members need to look at all of these issues in the round.
The local strategy partnerships will be able to carry forward many important lessons of the previous programme to the intermediary funding bodies (IFBs). Many of the issues that involved some differential uptakes as far as Peace I was concerned will be well reflected on by local strategy partnerships, IFBs and Government Departments in Peace II.
IFBs were appointed using a competitive tendering process, as previously indicated to the House. The outcome of the process was the subject of a press release and was notified to the Finance and Personnel Committee.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: The Minister mentioned the 20 July deadline for concluding the contract negotiations with the IFBs. Will he confirm that every effort will be made to conclude these negotiations within the deadline and ensure, in a speedy and satisfactory way, that IFBs are ready to do their job, which is to feed this money through to help the groups on the ground?

Mr Mark Durkan: When the North/South Ministerial Council agreed the deadline of 20 July last week, it was with the intention of meeting that deadline. We hope that agreement can be reached sooner.
We recognise the importance of ensuring that the overall programme is implementable. We need to ensure that the key position of IFBs, who will be responsible for distributing about 34% of the total value of the programme, is clearly established. While the tendering process and evaluation exercise that took place identified the bodies that should be appointed, there are other outstanding issues and some contractual points to be sorted out. Those are being pursued, not with a view to creating any delays or difficulties, but with a view to assisting in certainty and making sure that IFBs are best placed to perform their roles in a timely way. They should ensure that the managing and paying authorities are in the best place to ensure that the rest of the programme complements well and properly with those arrangements.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I do not welcome the statement. It has serious implications for the future of this funding as it applies to Northern Ireland.
I know a little about the programme as I, together with my two MEP Colleagues, sponsored it originally. At first, the Irish Republic wanted to get its hands on this money. The three of us were determined that the greater proportion of this money would come to Northern Ireland as the people here have suffered the most. We said — generously, if I may add — that the border counties had been affected by the problems. We decided unanimously that there would be money for that.
The new cross-border body is getting its hands on all this money. I do not know what legal right it has to have anything to do with Peace I or INTERREG II, because that was not originally in its agreement, and it was not operating when those programmes came about. Ministers have been telling people in Northern Ireland that the money has run out. We now find out that 86% of the funds allocated for peace has been spent and the remainder has not. This money could have been made available to those operations that had to shut down. These are serious matters, which the Assembly should take cognisance of.
12.00
Is the Minister saying that all the money coming from Europe has to be scrutinised by the joint board? What about the money directed specially to Northern Ireland? I know that there is not yet a structure in place for monitoring the situation — meetings have been called but have not taken place. I did, however, attend a meeting with the Minister’s party leader, and we had a long discussion about the monitoring of the money from Peace II. We need to know how this will be structured. Originally the three MEPs nominated two representatives to the main monitoring body. I have been pressing the Minister for information on what is to happen with regard to that but, so far, have not received any. I am surprised that it seems to have been delegated to Mr Nesbitt, who finds it difficult to organise his diary in order to meet the people who should be making representation to him. There has been difficulty in getting this matter settled. It needs to be settled. The money used to come to Northern Ireland, but it seems that the spending and monitoring of it is now in the hands of the Irish Republic. That is the key to the whole situation. The Minister —

Mr Speaker: Will the Member bring his question to a close?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: My question is simple. Mr Durkan and I have talked about this matter. I put the question to him personally, eyeball to eyeball. I made the situation crystal clear to him, and he knows my position. You do not need a dictionary to understand what I am getting at.

Mr Mark Durkan: I acknowledge fully the insights Dr Paisley has as a Member of the European Parliament who was very much involved in securing the Peace I programme. That being said, there are several misapprehensions under which he is labouring.
First, 80% of the Peace II moneys are to be spent in Northern Ireland, 20% in the border regions. The Special EU Programmes Body is the managing authority for Peace II. That is in position and is legal. There is no question of anything else being changed or moved in that regard.
Secondly, we need to be clear about the Peace I money and the 86% spend rate. The money has all been allocated. The problem is that not all of it has been drawn down and spent. Under the European Union regulations, we do not have the freedom to decide to spend the money on something else. We have to follow the regulations. Money can only be spent within the confines of the measures for which it has been allocated. Where it is clear that money may not be spent on a relevant project, it will have to go to designated reserve projects. It is not a case of going to another project that is currently in funding difficulties. The regulations and the programmes will not allow us to do that.
With regard to the monitoring arrangements for Peace II, in case it has escaped Members’ notice there are monitoring committees in place. There is a community support framework (CSF) monitoring committee as required by European regulations, created on a format agreed by social partners and others, including local government, arising from the interim CSF monitoring committee.
Monitoring committees for the programme for building sustainable prosperity and the Peace II programme have been set up and are already functioning, having been tasked with approving the programme complements. There are five sub-regional representatives who give voice to local government interests and perspectives on the CSF monitoring committee. They are from five political parties, all of which are represented in the Assembly.
The two programme monitoring committees comprise representatives from four parties, including the Member’s own party. The Peace II monitoring committee, which is a North/South body, and which is chaired by the Special EU Programmes Body, includes, for instance, a DUP MLA. Those arrangements are in place.
Dr Paisley referred to the Northern Ireland Partnership Board, which was just one aspect of the Peace I programme. It did not monitor the whole programme; it oversaw district partnership measures alone.
Under the new programme, we will be setting up a Northern Ireland regional partnership board. It will not only oversee local strategy partnerships, but will promote, foster and sponsor the wider development of partnerships, rather than micromanaging the local partnerships. Not least, it will try to improve the interaction of Government Departments and statutory agencies in regard to the work of partnerships. It will also try to build more partnership links between the different districts.
Because it will have a wider ambit, it is appropriate that the chairperson of the regional partnership board should be from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It will be the responsibility of the two junior Ministers. The secretariat for that body will be the Special EU Programmes Body. It will be an arrangement particular to Northern Ireland, because it is specifically the regional partnership board for Northern Ireland. Members should not be under any misapprehension that services, arrangements or facilities that apply specifically to Northern Ireland cannot be provided by the Special EU Programmes Body — it is entirely competent.

Mr Sean Neeson: I welcome the Minister’s statement. However, in common with Dr Paisley, I think that many grey areas remain, particularly in regard to the relationship between the Special EU Programmes Body and the monitoring committee that has already been established in Northern Ireland. Despite the Minister’s attempt to outline the relationships, the details are still unclear.
Secondly, have all the intermediary funding bodies (IFBs) been identified?
Finally, the local strategy partnerships will have an important part to play in regard to the Peace II funds. Has a deadline been set for the establishment of the outstanding partnerships?

Mr Mark Durkan: I am surprised that Mr Neeson, who is a member of the CSF monitoring committee, feels that there are grey areas. The role of the managing authority, as prescribed in European regulations, is clear. The Special EU Programmes Body is the managing authority for the Peace II programme. Equally, the European regulations set out the role of monitoring committees. In this round of funding, we are adhering to and applying the criteria for the operation of these committees in an effective way. The Peace II monitoring committee is chaired by the Special EU Programmes Body. This committee involves representatives from the social partners, from local government and even from Government Departments, some of whom are members, although most attend as advisers.
I cannot see where there is a grey area in the relationship between the monitoring committee and the body; the body is chairing the committee. The committee has agreed the programme complement, but it has identified some outstanding issues of concern, about which it will want to be satisfied as the programme gets under way and develops. The feedback that I have received from the two programme monitoring committees, not least at the last meeting of the CSF monitoring committee, which I chaired in Derry last week, is that people are very impressed with how those committees are operating. Their role is much clearer and more meaningful than in the previous round.
In respect of IFBs, I refer the Member to the answer that I have already given. The tendering process and the evaluation exercise have identified appropriate IFBs to cover the various measures for which they were asked to submit. That list has been identified and is a matter of public information. It has also been given to the House. We now want to conclude the necessary contractual negotiations by 20 July.

Ms Jane Morrice: As the European Commission’s Northern Ireland representative when Peace I was drawn up, I also have a special interest in this. I thank the Minister for the regular updates on the European programme and funding and how it is working. However, it has become clear through the interventions of Members that there are many grey areas and a great deal of confusion among Members and Committees. If we cannot understand how this system works, then the most important people — those who are trying to access funding and who are far further down the line of receiving information — must be extremely confused. What plans does the Minister have to adopt a more proactive approach to supplying information on these issues? It should not be a matter of statements being issued now and again or questions being asked of the Minister. Is he prepared to publish a guide to funding for recipients?
Will the Assembly get the opportunity to review the programme complement and the common chapter? Members would appreciate a debate on the report. That would be a better way of letting them have the details. I also want to know about other forms of assistance and guidance for groups applying for gap funding. What should they do, and which areas should they apply for?
Finally, I want to ask about INTERREG III. The Council was advised of the European Commission’s comments on the draft, which is now being revised. Can the Minister elucidate that? What did the European Commission not like about our proposal on INTERREG III? What changes are being made, and will the Assembly be able to see them?

Mr Mark Durkan: There are a number of points there. I remind Members that information has been given to the House and is also available in a number of other forms, including the various documents that have been published.
Ms Morrice mentioned the programme complement and the common chapter. The common chapter is not part of the programme complement, but part of the community support framework that was adopted last December. It has been the subject of previous questions and discussion in the House and in Committees and has been cleared. The common chapter is also reflected in the National Development Plan for Ireland.
Many Members — and I am not referring particularly to Ms Morrice — ask practically the same question each time I make a statement. They do not appear to listen to the answers, and then they complain about grey areas. I ask Members to consider that and apply it when the documentation is published and furnished to them. Many of the representations that I receive suggest that many people are "clueing in" to some of the arrangements that are in place. In particular, the very successful operation of the monitoring committees and the commitment of their members has been of great assistance in that regard.
Ms Morrice rightly made a point in relation to communication and information. All the monitoring committees have been impressing that since the first day of their existence. For example, last week the CSF monitoring committee agreed the appointment of a working group to take forward a communication strategy precisely in order to make good some of the points raised here. Let us remember, however, that because of the urgency of getting this programme under way and of getting funding on the ground, we cannot wait until there is a perfect communication strategy. The SEUPB has been working to make sure that a range of facilities will be available for people to have information on the programme, on the types of measures that will be considered and on the relevant managing authorities for those measures. That will now be part of our work, as we have completed the agreement on the programme complements.
As has happened in relation to other programmes, the European Commission raised points concerning particular aspects of the regulations with regard to INTERREG III. The intent of particular issues has been queried, and, as INTERREG III is a cross-border programme, part of the questioning was to make sure that what was being said meant the same thing in both jurisdictions. That was agreed at the last North/South Ministerial Council meeting in this format, and I am quite happy that we will be able to answer the fairly straightforward questions raised by the Commission.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and his comprehensive responses to several questions. On behalf of the North/South Ministerial Council, the Minister underlined the importance of the SEUPB’s role in contributing to the development of peace and reconciliation and in maximising social and economic benefits on the island as a whole, not least in the border areas.
The Minister referred to the Special EU Programmes Body’s statutory mandate in relation to monitoring the implementation of the common chapter. A number of programmes touch on health or education responsibilities. While the Minister is not directly responsible, I would like to know how he sees that in respect of the continuing unlawful ban imposed by David Trimble on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Minister of Education. Can the Minister advise the Members of any adverse effect of that ban in relation to those Departments’ having input into such programmes as they come forward?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Council recognised that development of the common chapter to date has not been satisfactory. There are several considerations. There has naturally been preoccupation with bringing forward the structural funds programme and the Peace programme. The concentration has been on negotiations with the European Commission and on working with the monitoring committees. Also, the common chapter is incorporated in the National Development Plan for Ireland in the South and in the community support framework in the North, but not always on a like-for-like basis. There are a number of issues.
The common chapter, as it applies in the South, is not confined strictly to EU funding. In the North, because it is in the community support framework, it is. There are therefore a number of meshing issues that we need to resolve. Those are not just between jurisdictions; we recognise that there are some meshing issues within jurisdictions as well. The working group was set up to try to ensure that we have plans for progress.
There is no point in having the perfect common chapter. The Member will have heard me say before that we had the common chapter seven years ago — it was a great book, but the movie was never made. This time, we need to ensure that we move forward. To develop and implement the common chapter, the Special EU Programmes Body needs to have a certain role in promoting and monitoring it. However, it would be entirely remiss for either the North/South Ministerial Council or myself, as Minister of Finance and Personnel here, to say that it is entirely up to the body. The body will not be able to monitor and promote very much unless the Government make the appropriate decisions and have the will to make something of the common chapter. That is why the working group is important.
Developing and operating the common chapter will involve a range of Departments, both North and South. As things develop, it might well also involve some of the different sectoral formats of the North/South Ministerial Council. To date, it has not significantly done so. Any difficulties that there have been concerning any of the sectoral formats in the North/South Ministerial Council, or concerning the common chapter, cannot therefore be blamed on any of the difficulties that there were with North/ South Ministerial Council appointments. The successful implementation of the common chapter will involve a range of different formats, including North/South Ministerial Council formats.

Mr Joe Byrne: I too welcome the Minister’s statement and, in particular, the confirmation of the staffing arrangements that are being put in place for the Special EU Programmes Body. Can the Minister confirm that that body will continue to receive the strong and active support of both Departments of Finance, thereby enabling it to carry out its important work in building peace and co-operation? Can he also confirm that the people, North and South, want to see continued peace-related progress being made?
Can the Minister give a commitment that a practical and meaningful common chapter programme of work will be formulated and acted upon, thus demonstrating active practical North/South co-operation and development along the border zone in particular?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Member raised several points. I hope that it is clear to Members from what I have said that I, Charlie McCreevey TD and the North/South Ministerial Council are clear about the important role of the Special EU Programmes Body. We recognise the work that it has done in establishing itself and the necessary lead-in work that it has undertaken to bring Peace II on-stream. We are therefore committed to supporting the body’s direct practical needs in relation to funding and staffing. Again, that was reflected in the statement. The Departments of Finance, North and South, and the North/South Ministerial Council will want to continue to work with the body to ensure that it can discharge its role across a range of programmes in the way that it needs to. People should appreciate the complexity and diversity of working demands that the body will face.
As I indicated, we want to ensure that we have a work plan for the common chapter that translates it into a programme for achievement and delivery, not just a text of aspiration. We have to get away from the "it’s the thought that counts" approach to these matters. That is why we have established the working group and why I look forward to having a work plan. I hope that the plan will be not just practical, but will have strategic merit. It should indeed benefit border areas, but the scope of the common chapter and the benefits that it might bring are not confined to border areas.

Mr Jim Shannon: Over the years, many people have expressed concerns about the allocation of funding. What steps will be taken to ensure that funding is equally allocated between areas that are perceived to be Unionist and those that are Nationalist? There has been a large shortfall in funding for Unionist areas. Will funding targets be set, and, if so, who will monitor them? Will safeguards be put in place to prevent shortfalls? Are measures in place to ensure that both communities benefit from the programme?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Member has raised a familiar point. First, I refer the Member to my previous answer, when I spoke about horizontal principles, including balance and equality. I also remind Members that we must operate in accordance with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Authorities are required to pay due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity.
An equality impact assessment was carried out on the policies in the structural funds plan to ensure that they did not directly or indirectly discriminate against or disadvantage any group. The assessment also identified the scope for enhancing equality of opportunity. Since then, we have consulted the Equality Commission and decided to update the assessment, in the light of the further refinements that have been made to the programme’s priorities and the more detailed information that was available in the programme complements.
Summaries of the operational programmes and details of the programme complements were sent to about 650 consultees, and some helpful comments were made. We are analysing the results of that exercise. The main questions related to communications, accessibility and monitoring. The programme monitoring committees and the community support framework monitoring committee want to see those issues pursued. Everyone involved is well seized of those issues.
We cannot predetermine a certain geographical distribution of funding. To do so would be to disregard the merit of particular projects or how well they measure up against the criteria set out by the Department and the European Commission. There would not be much point in negotiating the criteria with the European Commission or agreeing the details of the complements with the monitoring committees if, at the end of the exercise, the project were simply a geographical carve-up.
I hope that Members are reassured that all necessary steps will be taken to ensure that we fulfil all the criteria, objectives and statutory obligations that relate to the programme or are derived from the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister’s statement contains some comprehensive answers. However, I have listened to a great deal of negative comment from Members about the fairness of the distribution of funding. I hope that such complaints will not be used against members of my community in this round or to justify allocating funding in the opposite direction. The new round allows for single identity work. That is a mistake; it allows communities to remain in splendid isolation and exclude themselves from working with other local communities.
My question relates to the importance of the implementation of local strategy partnerships, with district councils being well in the running on this occasion. The Minister mentioned four local strategy partnerships. Is there a resistance on the part of councils to the inclusion of partnerships that were previously in place and to people from the voluntary sector being stakeholders? If the situation changes, how will this impact on the round of funding?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for the welcome he gave to my original statement. I hope that the Member’s fears will have been allayed by my previous response: allocations will be made according to the criteria set down in the details of the measures and on the basis of merit. Every effort will be made to ensure that people are made aware of the funding and take advantage of it and that the application process is accessible.
There will be no discrimination against anyone on any grounds. Not only will the authorities that manage the measures ensure that that is the case but the monitoring committees will also want to be satisfied that there is no discrimination, as will the European Commission, which attends committee meetings.
Sean Neeson put a question earlier about local strategy partnerships. Although I answered several of his questions, I omitted to answer that one. At the North/ South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting it was reported that four local strategy partnerships had already been established. Judging from the feedback that we have received, it looks as if a number of local strategy partnerships will be established.
Where the establishment of local strategy partnerships has been agreed within two months of the programme complement’s being agreed, 22 June, those partnerships will be entitled to receive their allocation of moneys under priority three. If agreement has not been reached on the establishment of local strategy partnerships, the existing district partnerships in those areas will receive 25% of the funding under priority three. The allocation of the remaining money will be determined when agreement is reached.
I assure Members that while there have been some misunderstandings and misgivings about the changing nature of the scope of partnership at district level, most people, not least those in the community and voluntary sectors, have been reassured of our aims.
First, we want to extend the scope of partnership and thereby extend the leverage of interest that those involved in partnership will have. Secondly, we are trying to extend the life cycle of partnership and make it more sustainable so that it does not perish when Peace II moneys run out.
Councils are being asked to play a more corporate role in the new partnership arrangements. This is not to allow them to muscle in and dictate to the partnerships but rather to ensure that the corporate work of councils is informed and influenced by the strategic thinking of the partnerships. Equally, the local statutory agencies must be involved, and we want to ensure that these agencies work their passage on the partnerships to a greater extent than they had previously done in Peace I.
That will involve negotiations at local level. Fifty per cent of the partnerships will represent Government, including statutory agencies and local government. They will determine the balance themselves. The remaining 50% will involve social partners, the four pillars of which are the community and voluntary sector, the business sector, the trade union sector and those with agricultural or rural interests. Among the details being ironed out are the precise numbers and configuration rather than wholesale issues of principle. I am not aware of any difficulties or resistance from local government.
The sitting was suspended at 12.36 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair) —

Winter Service Review

Sir John Gorman: I have received notice that the Minsiter for Regional Development wishes to make a statement on the winter service review.

Mr Gregory Campbell: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for granting me time in the busy schedule of the House to make a statement on the review of my Department’s winter service activities. I realise that it is a rather unseasonal topic, given that it is the height of summer, but it is an important issue, as indicated by the high level of interest among public representatives and the public.
Members might recall my statement to the House in January 2001 following the heavy snowfall of Christmas week, the heaviest since 1982. I announced that I had commissioned a review, with a final report to be completed by the end of June, so that the proposals could be effectively implemented in time for winter. A second heavy snowfall occurred at the end of February, and this was also considered in the review.
The review was undertaken by a team of senior Roads Service officials and outside experts, including Mr Mike Moore, director of environmental services for North Yorkshire County Council, in whose area snow frequently falls on the high moors.
I am grateful for the comments and advice of the Regional Development Committee, which met team members on 17 January 2001 at the start of the review and again more recently, when it heard the preliminary recommendations. Members of the Committee who have seen the detailed presentation of the review findings will agree that the review has been very thorough and has taken proper consideration of the issues raised by Members. It has been very worthwhile.
Most people believe that in exceptional winter conditions some disruption is to be expected, but there is always scope for improvement in our handling of those events. I am pleased that the Roads Service has drawn on the experience of last winter to develop better procedures.
One of the key points highlighted in the review is the need for a different approach to tackling heavy snow, by contrast to the routine salting of ice and frost. For example, during normal icy conditions, salt is sprayed at a rate of around 20 grams per square metre, and a gritter carries enough salt to cover the entire route. A gritter travels in one direction but spreads salt over both lanes, so the average treatment time for a route is approximately three hours.
By contrast, during heavy snow, salt has to be spread at twice the normal rate, and the gritters have to return to depot in mid-route to replenish. They also need to plough in both directions, and it can take more than a day to clear heavy snow from the standard network. The review makes several recommendations for addressing those difficult conditions.
The first recommendation is to increase snow-clearing capacity by adapting normal lorries to carry snowplough blades. The second is the phasing in of quick-mounting kits to cut the time needed to fit snow blades to vehicles. The third is to ensure that the workforce has regular training and practice in snow-clearing activities. The fourth is the prioritising of snow-clearing routes so that in extreme conditions the most important roads are tackled first. Finally, the review recommends enlisting the help of other agencies, such as district councils, to help clear busy town centre footpaths in periods of prolonged lying snow, and employing contractors and farmers to help clear snow from local roads using their own equipment.
The review also looked at procedures during normal frost conditions. As a public representative, I realise that many motorists greatly appreciate the salting service provided in times of ice and frost, so much so that there is a great demand to extend the normal salted road network. However, we must be practical, and we must carefully consider the resource implications. The salted road network comprises 28% of all roads and covers 80% of the traffic, because it targets busier roads. That amounts to over 4,200 miles of roadway, which is equivalent to twice the distance from Belfast to Moscow. This length of roadway is treated in just over three hours. It is a massive undertaking.
The review found that Northern Ireland has the greatest length of salted road network per head of population of any region in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. It is equal with Scotland, where winters are more severe, and is more than twice the average in England. Some of my officials said that we are "at the top of the league" in the UK. We should be trying — and I will be endeavouring — to win the European Champions’ League, rather than simply being the UK league champions.
We also must remember that RUC statistics show that frost, ice and snow are a factor in only 2·5% of all road injury accidents. Less than 1% occur on roads outside the normal salted road network. Extending the salted road network is not the best way of achieving a targeted reduction in road casualties. To do that, we would be better spending resources on proper funding for road maintenance, which would improve the wet-weather skidding resistance of road surfaces throughout the year, not just in winter, or increasing the allocation for the accident remedial and traffic-calming programmes. The traffic-calming programmes have a proven track record of cutting accidents by 40%. I am sure that Members will recall my recent announcement in the House about the increase in traffic-calming programmes.
A modest increase in the salted road network is, however, justified. It currently includes roads carrying more than 1,500 vehicles per day, or 1,000 vehicles per day in hilly areas. I have accepted the review team’s recommendation to increase the weighting for buses in service. For example, a 40-seater bus would be counted as 40 vehicles for the purpose of the criteria. I have also accepted the recommendation that each small settlement that has more than 100 dwellings within its area plan boundary should have a salted road link via the shortest route to the current salted road network. While precise routes still have to be worked out, we estimate that it will increase the salted network by up to 4%. Members may ask for more, but we already sit at the top of the UK league, and to do even more salting would inevitably mean doing less of something else. The number of people coming forward with suggestions for that has been remarkably small.
During conditions of prolonged ice or snow, Roads Service will also be taking a more flexible approach to requests for salting routes outside the salted network on a one-off basis. Other measures coming out of the review include earlier target times for completing morning salting runs to match the start of morning peaks on the main commuter routes, which are creeping forward year by year.
Finally, a new communications strategy is being developed, which will see an improved winter service leaflet being more widely distributed. In addition, Roads Service is developing systems so that real-time information on salting activities can be relayed electronically to the broadcast media. This will mean that motorists listening to breakfast radio can be kept up to date with road conditions and salting operations.
I have accepted the recommendations of the review team and asked Roads Service to implement them as far as possible for the coming winter. These measures will have a cost. In an average winter, that could be up to £0·5million over and above the typical expenditure, which has been around £4·5million per winter. In a severe winter, the cost will be much greater. However, my Department has not allowed cost restraints to impact on its response to emergency situations. That was demonstrated last winter, when we spread almost 75,000 tonnes of salt — 60% more than the average — and spent £1·2million more than the normal budget.
I hope that the wide level of interest in winter service operations from all sections of the House will be remembered when consideration is given to my Department’s bid for additional winter service resources in the appropriate estimating rounds.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make this statement to the House. I hope the House will agree that the measures I have announced today will help my Department to meet its main winter service objective, which is to help main road traffic move freely and safely in wintry conditions by spreading salt at the most effective times.

Mr Alan McFarland: I welcome the Minister’s statement and thank him for his discussions with the Regional Development Committee last week on this issue.
Clearly, we cannot grit all our roads, and there are substantial parts of the Province where minor roads fall outside the gritting schedule. Will the Minister consider encouraging local farmers to grit stretches of the road? Will he also consider placing strategic piles of grit in certain places on those roads that are not part of the gritted network, and encouraging local firms or farmers to help spread that grit? That would ease the load and the cost to the Department.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Deputy Chairperson for the positive nature of his comments. The review team considered the option of using farmers to help with normal salting operations. Consideration was given to it, and I will briefly outline why it was not pursued.
First, it would significantly increase the amount of salting and, therefore, the cost. Salting in that rather piecemeal way would be less efficient and more expensive than using a larger-capacity gritter. Secondly, there would be problems of command and control in contacting the farmers to tell them when to grit. There would also be the likelihood of discontinuous treatment, with roads being salted for a few miles but then the treatment being discontinued without any warning to motorists. That would create obvious problems.
There could be a significant response problem were we to employ persons who did not prove to be as reliable as others. If, through illness, or some other reason, they were not able to turn out, there would be an assumption that a road had been gritted when in fact it had not. That would be totally unacceptable to motorists.
The option of trying to get farmers to assist is an attractive one, but these reasons make it very difficult in the normal course of events to use them. As I said in my speech, the Roads Service at divisional level will be advertising, prior to this winter, to offer a standby contract to applicants who have suitable equipment and insurance. Farmers, as well as other contractors, will be able to apply for those positions.

Mr P J Bradley: This is an excellent statement, without any mention of the rocky road ahead. I share the Minister’s view, expressed in his statement, that it has been a very thorough review. It has certainly gone into great detail. I have just a few points.
On the issue of the volume of traffic that determines the gritting criteria, I welcome the change from 1,500 vehicles per day to 1,000 vehicles per day, but I am not completely satisfied. My long-held view is that the figure should relate to a given number of vehicles in any hour of a 24-hour period. The term "morning peaks", as used in the Minister’s statement, perhaps reflects my line of thinking.

Sir John Gorman: Are you coming to your question, Mr Bradley?

Mr P J Bradley: Here it is, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is my understanding from last week’s meeting with the Department’s officials that the intention was to ensure that at least one route to and from rural schools would be gritted or cleared to prevent school closures during severe weather. Will the Minister confirm that my understanding is correct?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Member for his broadly positive response. I will just establish the criterion for him. It has been 1,500 vehicles per day. I understand, however, the rationale that says that there may be a specific number of vehicles using a route at a precise time and that for the remainder of the day it might be relatively underused. There are difficulties in trying to establish the number of vehicles at a precise moment in a day. The normal practice has been to establish a 24-hour day in which a particular number of vehicles use a road.
There are major problems in establishing a precise time at which a significant number of vehicles are using a road. If we were able to do that, it would show that significantly more roads had significantly more cars on them at, say, 9.00 am — school time. We would then be back to the resource implications of trying to cover more roads, with significantly greater costs. The criterion is 1,500 vehicles per day, but in hilly areas, mountainous regions or in other difficult circumstances, the criterion is 1,000 vehicles per day. The change that I have made gives greater weighting to the buses that are using lesser- used roads. Previously, a lesser weighting was given to buses using such roads. That should bring more roads into the salted network.
The issue of minor roads to schools was looked at in the review. I hope that, as a result of the recommendations, small settlements — those with more than 100 dwellings within an area plan boundary — will have a salted link road to the salted route network. Therefore, even if they are in an area that is not close to a salted route network, there will be a road that will connect them to it. In that sense there will be a salted route between small settlements, schools and the overall salted network.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I am pleased that the Minister has accepted the review’s recommendations on this issue. People in west Tyrone will particularly welcome his comments about small settlements. It is vitally important that they be connected to the major salted routes in case of emergencies.
There is another issue that I am concerned about. There are many salt and grit boxes in rural areas. During times of normal frost — I am not talking about heavy snow — there is sometimes excessive use of grit in the mornings, the supply becomes depleted, and nobody seems to replenish it. In order to deal with, for instance, a five- or six-day spell of frost, there needs to be adequate replenishment of grit. Also, what is being done with regard to village and town footpaths? The greatest numbers of personal accidents happen during frosty periods.
My last point concerns the suitability of the equipment used to move the snow to the side of the road. It can cause more problems. Many of the snowploughs push the snow into farmers’ lanes, and you can end up with lanes jammed and roads that nobody can access. Can we ensure that the equipment used pushes the snow right off the road and does not jam the lanes along the route?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Member raised a number of issues, and I will try to deal with each of them. The availability of salt from depots was looked at during the review. One of the problems was that there seemed to be some representation to allow the public access to the depots to acquire salt to be used on roads outside the salted network or on farm lanes. That would have safety implications at a very busy time in the depots. With large gritters and loading shovels manoeuvring and reversing, there would be the possibility of accidents and claims arising from that. The safety of the public in the depots would have to be taken account of. The outcome of the review is that at the moment, salt boxes and grit piles are provided near to the points where they are most needed. One of the lessons learned from last winter is that those boxes and grit piles must be regularly replenished throughout frosty and snowy weather. The Department will endeavour to do that.
I know from Members’ representations to me, and having made representations myself with regard to footways in Coleraine over the Christmas period, that there can be severe difficulties in pedestrian zones and on footways. However, it is at that time that Roads Service resources are stretched to the limit in trying to keep the main traffic routes open.
One of the first services to be stopped on occasions of severe weather conditions is the refuse collection carried out by district councils. In that case, district councils might be able to assist by spreading salt on busy town centre footways; Roads Service will gladly supply them with salt to do so. Some councils have expressed an interest in assisting in that way, and Roads Service will be in touch with all councils before next winter to see if local agreements can be reached to secure that assistance.
Mr Gibson’s final point related to Roads Service’s capacity to move snow without leaving it in another location where it can block access to and from lanes or minor roads. That point was addressed in the review. As I said earlier, staff will be trained in the fastest and most efficient way of loading the devices to clear the snow, and in the best and most efficient method of moving it from the roadway.

Sir John Gorman: Ten more Members wish to ask questions, and only 32 minutes remain. I will therefore commend brevity in the length and number of questions asked.

Mr Pat McNamee: I welcome the Minister’s statement; I do not think it at all unseasonal. It is proper that a review of the winter services take place and that the recommendations be put in place now; they should be implemented prior to the winter season rather than when the first severe weather warning is announced. I particularly welcome the recommendation to have a communication strategy.
When priority roads have been cleared by snowploughs during prolonged snow cover, will the ploughs then be deployed to clear the lesser-used roads? The review also recommended that contractors and farmers should be employed and involved in clearing snow in local areas. Does the Minister anticipate that the necessary advertising, recruitment and contracts will take effect in time for the forthcoming winter?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I place great store on communication. Communication to motorists in the mornings when they begin their journeys is particularly important. It is important for them to know if a road has been cleared or is likely to be cleared in the immediate future. That is fundamental, and it is hoped that it will be of considerable assistance this winter.
As I said in my statement, the salted network comprises 28% of the road network in Northern Ireland. That 28% represents the most heavily travelled routes, and therefore some 80% of the traffic. Where there is snow and frost to such an extent that the main roads, which carry that 80% of traffic, are severely affected — and this happened last Christmas — Roads Service will concentrate on those roads and on that network. Once the salted road network has been cleared — either due to the efficiency of Roads Service or a slight improvement in conditions — it may be possible to try to clear minor roads that are not part of the network. Flexibility in the system will allow Roads Service to do this on a one-off basis, although there will be resource implications. The more often we do it, the more often we will exceed the amount of money allocated for winter service operations, which at the moment is just under £5 million, and the more often I will be coming back to the House to try to get additional moneys.
Trying to ensure that rural communities are not cut off is an issue that concentrated the minds of those on the review team. Undoubtedly, it will be foremost in the minds of all Roads Service officials this winter. I hope and expect that all communications and advertising will take place before winter comes so that the entire community will be aware of the position.

Mr Jim Wilson: I thank the Minister for his statement and the attention that he and his Department are giving to the problems we have experienced during the recent winter.
The Minister will be aware of my South Antrim constituency. It can be described as a north/south axis stretching from urban Newtownabbey to the slopes of the Colin Mountain and Elliot’s Hill in the north, and the boundary between south Antrim and Ballymena. It was in that area over the recent winter that the farming and rural community was, as we say in the country, "blocked in" for a period of almost four days. When I eventually got to the area I found that a subcontractor had been trying to open roads over a large rural area. He appeared to have only two small pieces of machinery. He was not —

Sir John Gorman: Are you coming to your question?

Mr Jim Wilson: Yes. The subcontractor was not even from my own county, never mind the Newtownabbey direction. Is the Minister giving attention to the need to be ready with more resources in a situation such as this? The resources available then were not able to cope with the situation.
I have seen the technology that is now in place, and I hope the Minister will accept that, last year, the one thing for which he was criticised more than any other was for being caught on the hop. If the Minister has the technology — and I was impressed with it — providing a link between the weather forecasters, himself, and his regional managers, why was he caught on the hop so often, when the cats and dogs on the street knew—

Sir John Gorman: This is getting very —

Mr Jim Wilson: —that there was a severe frost and that there was going to be snow. However, we went out on to our roads the next morning to find that apparently Roads Service had not been in attendance.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I take Mr Wilson’s comments about his constituency and the subcontractor on board. I will not go through the guided tour he gave me.
I expect that the training that Roads Service staff will undertake will be completed by winter. They will be in touch with subcontractors such as the one Mr Wilson mentioned. They will be aware of the best way they can operate in the winter and of the best and most productive way they can ensure that designated roads are cleared. I hope and expect that the first-hand training given to Roads Service staff will be passed on to subcontractors.
The other issue is the extent of the snowfall. I am glad that Mr Jim Wilson used the word "apparently" in his question just now. I agree with him that a person rising in the morning and seeing a road covered in snow or frost would naturally assume that it had not been salted. It is not always an accurate assumption, because the road could be salted or gritted and then there could be a further snowfall. Given the extent of the salted road network — over 4,000 miles, which has to be covered in less than three hours — it is possible that roads could be salted and subsequently frosted over. It is difficult to salt roads in such a way that everyone can find the network clear, with no snow having fallen in the 30 minutes or 45 minutes since the roads were salted.
The review was carried out to make the best scheme in the UK a better scheme. As I said earlier — somewhat tongue in cheek — while we are the best in the UK, I want us to be the best in Europe. The Champions’ League is what we want.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Minister’s statement. The Regional Development Committee made a meaningful contribution to that review.
Did Roads Service consider salting at least one route to each school, particularly those in rural areas where there is great concern each winter about public safety? People in rural areas would appreciate that.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thought that I had paid tribute to the Committee already. I thank the Committee for its help and assistance in considering the outcome of the review.
The review considered rural schools. The difficulty is that there is usually more than one access road to each school. The problem — without going into specific detail — is that if a particular route between the salted road network and a small rural school were to be salted, then people living on the wrong side of the salted minor road would have to make additional journeys. Such people might have to go several miles in order to get to the salted minor road, thereby increasing the possibility of motorists believing that they were encountering more risk.
Therefore, while the review looked at the possibility of salting a minor road between the salted road network and a rural school, it was simply not possible to do it in a way that would minimise journey time. If it were possible to achieve this, we would look at the situation again. If Members know of specific roads that could be salted and that would not disadvantage a number of parents leaving children to school, then I will look at such a situation.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I would like to talk about school bus routes in my own area of Newry and Mourne, and in particular in the areas around Mayobridge, Ballyholland and Rathfriland.
Last winter the minor roads in these hilly areas, which are served by four or five bus routes, were taken off the gritting schedule. Although I welcome the Minister’s statement and what he is trying to do, he does not go far enough. These minor roads should be prioritised before death or injury occurs on school bus routes.

Sir John Gorman: I think the Member intended to ask a question. Perhaps the Minister will answer it.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I have outlined the resource implications before, and I tried to do so again today. For example, if I were to increase the percentage of traffic covered by the salted network from the existing 80% to 90%, it would costs several million pounds. If I were to try to cover 100%, which most would accept as being virtually impossible, it would cost many millions of pounds. It is therefore a question of devising a mechanism to treat the maximum mileage of road and accommodate the maximum number of vehicles on the salted network within the resources available to me.
I understand the concerns about rural areas, and it is about these areas that Members speak most consistently, but in practical terms they have the lowest density of traffic. Today I announced a change in the weighting to be applied to buses — for example, school buses. This will increase the number of minor rural roads included on the salted network. As I said, for the purposes of the criteria, a 40-seater bus is counted as 40 vehicles. That ought to mean that a greater number of small rural roads on which school buses take children to rural schools will become part of the salted route network. However, it would cost several million pounds to cover every eventuality for every rural school on every rural route.
In the past I have made bids for additional funding for winter maintenance, but unfortunately they have been unsuccessful. However, I will continue to bid for an increase in the amount of resources deployed for winter service.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I welcome the Minister’s statement, but I query the administrative outwork and the practical terms of his statement. He refers to enlisting the help of other agencies, such as district councils. Does he intend to pay district councils for their assistance, so that they can recoup some of their costs? As a member of a local authority, I must declare an interest in this matter.
Will the Minister consider, even at this late stage, compiling a register of willing contractors, including local farmers, who could be organised to salt the roads network, particularly minor roads in constituencies such as Newry and Armagh, which need obvious and urgent attention during winter conditions?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The question of councils will be dealt with in the near future, in the light of the correspondence that will flow from the Roads Service to each of the 26 district councils. I do not want to go into specifics, but most interested observers will see the practical difficulties encountered by councils when there is substantial snowfall. In times of heavy snowfall, the refuse collection service is usually reduced considerably or stopped.
It would be a positive and productive use of council staff’s time if it were possible, between Roads Service and local councils, to devise a system to deploy that labour to clear footways and pedestrian areas. Roads Service and councils will discuss that in some detail before any agreement is reached, but the communication between them will be under way within a few months — well in advance of the winter.
Mr Kennedy referred to how farmers can be included. I said earlier that there will be a standby contract with applicants with suitable equipment and insurance. That will almost exclusively be in rural areas, where they are required because the roads are outside the salted route network. Farmers and other contractors will be entitled to apply, and I encourage them to do so. When they do, and the successful applicants are ready to begin, they must be suitably trained in the use of the machinery in order to get the maximum efficiency from the post.

Mr John Dallat: There does not appear to be any reference to cross-border co-operation. I spent several hours marooned on the Newry-Killeen border crossing on December 28. Can the Minister assure the House that main crossing points will receive priority in a co-ordinated way so that there is no repeat of last winter’s failures, when many people, including the elderly and young children, were left stranded for hours?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I assume from the Member’s comments that the road that he mentioned is on the salted route network. It is obvious that, in extreme conditions, there can be difficulties in keeping even the salted route network open. However, any main road on the salted route network — whether it is cross-border or not — is a priority route, and resources are deployed to keep it clear. The principle that I have announced will also apply on other roads — again, cross-border or not — outside the salted route network. Where the salted route network is clear and resources allow Roads Service to try to clear other roads on a one-off basis, resources will be deployed to keep those roads clear.
I intend that the roads that carry 80% of traffic, whether internal to Northern Ireland or cross-border, will be kept clear. The review is designed to achieve that objective. I hope, and confidently expect, that that will be the case.

Mr William Hay: The review has pinpointed a number of problems. I want to ask the Minister about information that is available to the public. On many occasions when there has been a severe winter or overnight snow, there has been a lack of information to the public, and especially motorists, about which roads are blocked and the timetable for clearing them. I want the Minister to take the point about how the public is informed of road conditions when there is a heavy snowfall.

Mr Gregory Campbell: As I said in response to a previous question, I have taken a particular interest in this issue. Of all the aspects of the review, this can go the furthest in assisting members of the public. The possession of information about whether roads are blocked or clear will assist them in making decisions about their journeys. That is why I want to see — and will expect to see — the communications strategy in place in advance of the winter service leaflet being more widely distributed. We now have a whole network in Northern Ireland of major broadcasting stations and minor commercial radio stations. Many people tune in to those on car radios, or at home before leaving. If we can get real-time information to motorists or potential motorists, that will greatly assist them in their journeys.
By way of a caveat, I must add that the weather enters the equation. For example, even if at 6.45 am a local radio station — wherever it might be in Northern Ireland — indicates that a particular road is clear, there may well be heavy snow at 6.55 am. That would, of course, mean that the information that people received 10 minutes previously was obsolete.
There is a difficulty. There is no precise scientific answer to this question. However, in general terms, the communications resource, if used properly, can go a substantial way to being of significant assistance to all motorists, particularly in very severe wintry conditions.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have to welcome any review which might improve the situation regarding roads in the winter. Looking at the situation last year — or in any year — quite often in rural areas, heavy snow means that everything stops. It can even happen in cities, as was the case on one particular day last year.
It is welcome that the figure of 1,500 vehicles per day has been reduced to 1,000. Is the latter figure based on urban areas rather than rural areas? If so, areas such as Fermanagh or Tyrone would have only a very small length of minor roads gritted or salted. That is a difficulty. We have some link roads between main roads that are used a lot by heavy lorries, although perhaps not by school buses. There are difficulties with the surfaces of particular roads —

Sir John Gorman: Are you coming to a question?

Mr Gerry McHugh: My question is being asked in context. Is there a possibility that roads within striking distance of the criterion of 1,000 vehicles could be included at some point? They are particularly difficult at a local level.

Mr Gregory Campbell: Most of the roads outside the salted network are in rural areas, because rural areas are, for the most part, less populated than urban areas. Those roads falling outside the salted route network are therefore almost exclusively rural roads. The criterion of 1,000 vehicles per day refers to areas of mountainous or hilly terrain. I should elaborate on the matter of buses, particularly in relation to rural schools. Where a number of buses use lightly travelled routes, each 40-seater bus counts as 40 vehicles towards meeting the criterion. Each year, Roads Service staff review the roads network to identify roads that may be coming close to entry into the salted network.
The problem is that if Roads Service were to make roads that carry 900 or 950 vehicles per day a point of reference, next year MLAs and councillors would say that there are roads that carry 800 or 850 vehicles per day, a figure that almost meets the 900-vehicle benchmark. That would bring us back to the resource implications. Therefore there are difficulties and problems, but there is also flexibility.
For a further year, sympathetic consideration will be given to winter gritting of those roads that currently come close to the 1,000-vehicle-per-day criterion in hilly areas. In the following year, the number of vehicles on those roads may increase slightly, with the total coming close to or exceeding the 1,000-vehicle-per-day criterion. If that happened, the road would be placed on the salted route network.

Mrs Joan Carson: I listened carefully to the Minister’s statement, which deals with an issue that needed to be addressed given last winter’s road conditions. However, can the Minister tell me whether all bus routes to rural schools will be gritted?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I will try to be as clear as I can and clearer, obviously, than I have been. Every rural road that meets the criteria will be salted. Rural and urban roads are on the salted route network if they meet the criteria. It follows that if they are not on the salted route network, they do not meet the criteria. The outcome of today’s statement will be to increase the number of roads on the salted road network. I admit that the increase will be marginal, but given the resources at my disposal it is difficult to see how it could be otherwise.
The Member is concerned about rural schools. In the case of small rural roads in areas that do not meet the criteria, the Department is endeavouring to look at small settlements in those rural areas with more than 100 dwellings within the area plan boundary and to provide them with a salted road link via the shortest route to the current salted network. That will not automatically mean that every rural school has a salted road leading to it. However, rural roads that meet the criteria will be salted.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I welcome the Minister’s statement and in particular the recommendations to use the help of local farmers and local district councils to keep footpaths clear. As the Minister is aware, the terrain in the council area of Derry is steep and difficult to negotiate. I listened to the responses that the Minister gave to Mr Kennedy and to Mr Gibson. Can he confirm that the schemes will be well advertised, with contracts drawn up in advance so that, in the event of a heavy snowfall or a severe frost, the risk to the public will be minimised?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I suppose that the short answer is yes. The problem is that however well the scheme is advertised, people will miss it. Some months should elapse between today and the start of the winter schedule. At that time, we will try to maximise local media coverage through radio stations, television and newspapers so that as many people as possible are aware of the schedule, what it means and what roads it covers in their area.

Dr Esmond Birnie: What management and control systems exist in the Department for Regional Development to ensure that the distribution of ploughs and gritters reflects the variable distribution of snow, because snow does not, of course, fall evenly across the Province?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Member has raised a very important and interesting point. Although I will probably get in trouble with my staff for saying this, I encourage the hon Member — and other Members — to go to the Roads Service meteorological survey office, where they will, I hope, be given a résumé that shows exactly how each of the district council areas is covered and how the reports are sent in on a frequent basis throughout the day. Those reports mean that at any given time, engineers across Northern Ireland are aware of the temperatures throughout Northern Ireland, the depth of any snow and the potential for more snow and frost. During the very bad weather last winter, I went to the office to get a report. I heavily recommend that Members do that — or rather I "actively" recommend it; otherwise Members might think that I am talking about snowfall. They will see the extent to which Roads Service goes to try to ensure that account is taken of the differentials that Dr Birnie mentioned.

Mr Ivan Davis: Given the amount of salt being used and the size of the road network being covered, is there any evidence of long-term effects on the roads? If there is, how much money will be coming out of the Minister’s budget to repair those roads?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Member is talking about the unfortunate corollary of the steps that I have proposed. Taking a dispassionate view, the money that is required to salt the roads for two years would build a bypass. Using salt on the salted route network does have an effect on the roads, and that has an impact on the maintenance budget throughout Northern Ireland. However, given the pressures that we face and the demands from the community regarding the extent of the salted route network, it is a very finely balanced judgement.
In my statement I said that 75,000 tonnes of salt were spread last winter. That does have an effect on the structure of the roads, but we are also under pressure to ensure that the roads are made as safe as possible to travel on during extreme weather conditions. The downside, as Mr Davis says, is that that has a cost effect that, unfortunately, is reflected in my maintenance budget.

Mr Tom Hamilton: Most of the questions today have, rightly, concerned rural roads. Grit boxes are provided at the bases of steep hills in towns so that people can grit them themselves. However, over the past few years I have received several complaints from people who live near hills which are not deemed steep enough for a grit box to be provided but which, when the frost comes in the winter, do present serious problems for traffic. Does the Minister intend to review the criteria that govern the provision of grit boxes in towns?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The issue of salt boxes and grit piles causes difficulties, particularly during the periodic visits by Roads Service officials to local councils. Invariably, during the winter visit, local councils make representations such as the one that Mr Hamilton has just made.
It is difficult to provide a salt box or grit pile at every incline, regardless of its steepness or the number of dwellings on it. Roads Service officials will deal sympathetically with requests from people who live on an incline, from their local representatives — MPs, MLAs or councillors — or from the corporate body of the council.
I am aware, as are others, of instances in which a council has asked Roads Service officials to consider more closely the provision of salt boxes. I expect Roads Service officials to treat the matter in a sympathetic manner. I would like details of requests for salt boxes that have not been met, and I will ask my Roads Service officials to explain the decisions.

Mr Edwin Poots: The Minister referred to the provision for footpaths in town centres and the need for collaboration with agencies such as district councils. Will the Roads Service liaise with the district councils at an early stage to establish ways to clear and grit footpaths in winter? The Department is trying to encourage people to use means of transport other than cars. Last winter, many pedestrians had to walk on the roads, which was very dangerous. I would like footpaths to be cleared and gritted.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am at a disadvantage, because I have not been present for the entire debate. The Roads Service will write to every district council to try to reach a series of agreements with them. Mr Poots is correct to state that many footpaths and pedestrian zones become dangerous in extreme weather conditions. There have been occasions on which council staff could have cleared those footpaths and zones, but were not asked to do so because the necessary agreements had not been put in place.
The review will speed up that process and ensure that there is urgent communication with councils over the next couple of months, well in advance of the winter gritting season. I hope that, at that stage, councils will be able to enter into an agreement with the Roads Service. Although the agreements will be voluntary, the public will benefit from them.

Sir John Gorman: Time is up. I congratulate the Minister and Members on keeping the debate brief.

Industrial Development Bill: Second Stage

Sir Reg Empey: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Industrial Development Bill [NIA 18/00] be agreed.
Members will recall that the Agenda for Government identified the focusing of the economic development agencies on new economic challenges as a key issue. In taking that matter forward by means of the Industrial Development Bill, I have considered how the economic development agencies within the remit of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment can be reorganised to meet those new challenges in the most efficient and effective manner.
As a first step, I commissioned detailed research on the current arrangements and on how economic development support is administered in other parts of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, mainland Europe and further afield. I also sought a detailed report on local enterprise provision. Last October, I issued a consultative paper entitled ‘Towards a new structure for economic development support in Northern Ireland’. It was sent to members of the Executive, to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, to business bodies and to other social partners, among others, through the Economic Development Forum and the Northern Ireland Public Alliance, the trade union representing staff in the existing agencies.
Responses were received from over 40 interested parties, representing a wide cross section of opinion. The overwhelming weight of opinion supported the view that the time was now right for better and more efficient delivery of economic development support services and that the best and most efficient means of achieving that was through the establishment of a new single agency. The predominate opinion was that such an agency would have more flexibility, more credibility and would be more responsive to the needs of its clients if it were at arm’s length from Government.
The Industrial Development Bill will establish a single economic development agency as a non-departmental public body. Members will recall that I recently proposed that the new body be known as Invest Northern Ireland (INI). The Bill transfers the powers provided by the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 to Invest Northern Ireland. That will allow it to exercise the functions currently within the remit of the Industrial Development Board (IDB), the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU), the Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU), the business support division of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment — formerly part of the Training and Employment Agency — and the business support activities of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. It also transfers the current assets and liabilities of those bodies and amends the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 and the related legislation that underpins their activities.
The main purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to establish Invest Northern Ireland and transfer powers to it. Although the Bill specifies the parameters of matters such as membership and remuneration of the board of Invest Northern Ireland, as well as staffing and financial arrangements, it seeks only minor variations to existing powers in respect of the provision of financial assistance to business. Consequently, the Bill has no significant impact on the policy and functions of existing agencies.
The Bill consists of eight clauses and four schedules. I will briefly outline the key aspects of the principal clauses. First, I must point out that the Bill should be read in conjunction with the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, as the main functions of Invest Northern Ireland will derive from Part III of that Order.
Clause 1 establishes Invest Northern Ireland as a body corporate, and, in tandem with schedule 1, sets out its status, constitution and procedures. Paragraph 1 of schedule 1 defines Invest Northern Ireland’s status as a non-departmental public body; it is not, therefore, an agent of or the property of the Crown. Paragraphs 2 to 4 cover the setting up of the board of Invest Northern Ireland. They enable the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to appoint a chairperson and a board consisting of between 10 and 20 members. The composition will reflect experience in the various activities of Invest Northern Ireland and shall, as far as possible, be representative of the community in Northern Ireland. The Bill also allows for a member of the board to be appointed as deputy chairperson. All appointments will be for up to five years.
It is intended that both the chairperson and members of the Invest Northern Ireland board will receive remuneration and allowances at a level determined by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. As Members will have noted, advertisements have already appeared in the local and national press seeking to recruit persons to a shadow board, which should be in place before the end of August 2001. We plan to advertise the post of chief executive designate before the summer is over. The chief executive designate will assist the shadow board in its deliberations on the preparatory work essential to the establishment of Invest Northern Ireland. For this reason, paragraph 5 of schedule 1 provides that the Department will appoint the first chief executive of Invest Northern Ireland. I will, of course, consult the members of the shadow board and involve them in that most important appointment. Invest Northern Ireland will appoint every subsequent chief executive.
Paragraph 5 also provides for Invest Northern Ireland to appoint additional staff as it considers appropriate. Paragraph 6 allows for staff employed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service to be seconded to Invest Northern Ireland. It is envisaged that, in the first instance, a significant body of civil servants will be seconded to Invest Northern Ireland for a transitional period. That will mean that, from day one, Invest Northern Ireland will employ staff who are experienced in its field of operation. Through time, staff on secondment will have to decide whether to return to the Northern Ireland Civil Service or become permanent staff of Invest Northern Ireland.
Paragraph 7 empowers Invest Northern Ireland to determine employees’ remuneration and allowances, to maintain pension arrangements and pay gratuities. Those determinations will require the prior approval of my Department and the Department of Finance and Personnel. Paragraphs 8 to 12 empower Invest Northern Ireland to establish committees and the proceedings governing their meetings. The accountability of Invest Northern Ireland is of paramount importance, and paragraphs 16 to 18 allow for the funding of Invest Northern Ireland by the Department. Those paragraphs also set out the requirement that the agency produce proper accounts for each financial year. As a non-departmental public body, Invest Northern Ireland will be able to make payments in accordance with terms and conditions to be agreed with my Department and the Department of Finance and Personnel.
Officials in my Department and the Department of Finance and Personnel are already working on the practical details of the new accountability arrangements. I look forward to working in co-operation with my ministerial Colleague, Mark Durkan, and the members of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment to ensure that we achieve the essential balance between maximum freedom and flexibility for Invest Northern Ireland and appropriate control and proper accountability.
From the financial year ending March 2003, Invest Northern Ireland must produce proper accounts and make them available to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG). The Department will then lay the subsequent C&AG report and the accounts before the House for scrutiny. Similarly, the Bill requires Invest Northern Ireland to produce for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment an annual report, which will be laid before the Assembly.
Paragraph 19 brings Invest Northern Ireland within the scope of the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and thereby brings it within the scope of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Clause 2 and schedule 3 transfer existing industrial development powers to Invest Northern Ireland, thus creating its powers. In broad terms, that means that from the appointed day, Invest Northern Ireland will exercise the functions previously carried out under Part III of the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 and article 3 of the Energy Efficiency (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. Clause 2(1)(a) will enable Invest Northern Ireland to provide financial assistance for industrial undertakings. Clause 2(1)(b) enables Invest Northern Ireland to take action for the purpose of promoting the efficient use of energy in industry.
Clause 2(3) obligates Invest Northern Ireland to advise the Department generally on the formulation of its industrial development policy. Although the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will retain responsibility for economic development policy, an essential aspect of that will be guided by the practical experiences of Invest Northern Ireland in its crucial role of programme delivery. Clauses 2(4) and (5) empower the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to issue directions to Invest Northern Ireland after consulting with it.
Schedule 3 sets out the amendments that the Bill makes to the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 and the Energy Efficiency (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. Paragraph 15 amends schedule 2 of the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order with regard to the compulsory purchase of land by Invest Northern Ireland. It will enable the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to make a vesting order at the request of and on behalf of Invest Northern Ireland if the latter proposes to acquire land without agreement. One of the effects of the amendment will be to lessen the likelihood of any criticism that the body seeking the vesting order and the actual vesting body are one and the same.
Clause 3 and schedule 2 dissolve the existing bodies. Subsections (1) to (3) effect, from the appointed day, the dissolution of the Industrial Development Board (IDB), the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU) and the Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU). Clause 3(4) removes the Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s powers to provide assistance for the purposes of providing or improving tourist accommodation. The power to provide assistance for those purposes will be exercised by Invest Northern Ireland under article 7 of the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, as amended by this Bill. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board will no longer have the power to offer grant assistance for tourist accommodation. From now on, tourism businesses will be treated like any other businesses. That change is made in response to points raised by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the wider tourism sector.
Schedule 2 makes provision for the transfer of the relevant property, rights, liabilities and staff to Invest Northern Ireland. That will involve the transfer of permanent staff from LEDU and the Tourist Board and the transfer of property, rights and liabilities from LEDU, the Tourist Board, the Department, IDB and IRTU. It also specifies the transitional arrangements for the preparation and laying of the necessary final accounts and reports of the bodies being dissolved.
Clause 5 details amendments and repeals. Clause 5(2) removes an existing restriction in article 7(6) of the 1982 Order, with regard to the taking of equity as a means of offering financial assistance. Current policy thinking no longer sees the taking of equity as a last resort, and the amendment will enable Invest Northern Ireland to utilise the taking of equity more proactively in offers of financial assistance. That brings the legislation into line with existing practice. Reflecting ‘Strategy 2010’ thinking, it also offers the prospect that the Exchequer will benefit from the most successful projects, because the Government will have the opportunity to share in the success of companies.
Subsection (3) is a technical amendment to deal with a minor anomaly in the charging of interest on loans made under the 1982 Order. There have been instances where the principal and interest on a loan are not repaid by means of instalments but are repayable in total on or before a specified date. In such cases article 7(7) of the 1982 Order does not apply, and additional interest cannot therefore be charged. Hence, I am seeking to modify the provision to allow for additional interest to be charged irrespective of whether the principal or interest is repayable by instalments.
Clause 6 retains in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment the powers under the 1982 Order to offer financial assistance to the gas and electricity industries, responsibility for which will remain with my Department. It is, however, only a temporary saving until the issue can be fully addressed in forthcoming energy legislation. The saving therefore expires three years from the appointed day.
Clause 7 gives the Department the power to bring the provisions of the Bill into force by order. As Members will be aware, it is intended that Invest Northern Ireland be established in early 2002.
I hope that the Bill will pave the way to the creation of what I believe is the desire of all Members and the wider business community: a new and vibrant economic development agency. The Bill will establish Invest Northern Ireland and will enable it to respond quickly, efficiently and effectively in an intensely competitive global marketplace in which the emphasis must be on getting the job done and not on bureaucracy.
I want to express once again our appreciation for the professionalism and hard work of those currently employed in the existing agencies. They have had exceptional years, especially last year. The moves that we are making are not a reflection on their abilities but rather an understanding that the nature of business and the relationship between Government and business must change in modern circumstances.
Northern Ireland is slowly climbing back to normality, and it is essential that we capitalise on the new opportunities that are opening up to us. If we are to attract the best, we must modernise, innovate and seek new and better ways of doing the job. The Industrial Development Bill lays the necessary foundations to enable us to realise our vision for a new and better Northern Irish economy, and I hereby commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I pay tribute to the Minister. This change has been mooted for a long time, and he has taken the initiative and acted. The separation between the two main agencies, IDB and LEDU, based on company size, has created confusion. A precedent was recently set in the Republic of Ireland, where one agency was brought into being with two internal branches, one relating to industry of home origin and the other to externally owned firms.
I want to make three points about the Bill. The first is the need to build on past achievements; the second is getting the right person for the top of the new agency; and the third is the need for the general policy and direction of the agency to focus, as the Minister said, on raising the productivity of the Northern Ireland economy.
There is a need for a balanced view of the past. At the end of his speech, the Minister rightly said that as we are now marking the end of a series of agencies — or their incorporation together into one larger body — it is appropriate to pay tribute to all those who have worked in those bodies in previous decades. The bookshelves groan under the weight of the reports and books that have sought to evaluate those agencies over the past 25 years: the Northern Ireland Economic Council; the Economic Research Centre; the Economic and Social Research Institute; and others. I confess that I was involved with one or two of them.
As IDB and LEDU pass into history, we should note that since 1969 they have had to labour under more difficult circumstances than those faced by their counterparts in Wales, Scotland or the Republic of Ireland. It is also worth saying — the point has been made in this House, and it may be made this afternoon — that, contrary to the allegation that there was a bias in the way in which those agencies worked in different parts of the Province, all the available academic studies suggest that the distribution of inward investment into Northern Ireland was equitable. I refer to, for example, a study conducted in the department of economics at Queen’s University, which came to that conclusion.
IDB and LEDU have had different cultures for dealing with companies. It is important that the good is preserved when we bring them together. For example, in the past decade, LEDU has built up a system of creating strong relationships with companies that were identified as having high growth potential.
My second point relates to the importance of getting the right person at the top of the new agency. It is not possible to go into specifics, but it would be desirable to have someone with a high level of business experience and wider international experience. They will have to be paid accordingly. It may not be populist politics to say so, but the salary should reflect internationally competitive standards for executive pay.
Finally, with regard to the broader policy environment, the agency should focus on raising the productivity, or output per head, of the Northern Ireland economy. There is a good argument to be made that that has been the crucial problem facing our economy since 1921, because it has fed through into so many other characteristics, such as relatively high rates of unemployment.
Our levels of gross domestic product per head have moved up slowly toward those in the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe, but it has been a slow, and irregular, process of so-called convergence. Indeed, since about 1990, the available indications suggest that our standard of living has got stuck at roughly four fifths of the United Kingdom and European Union average. There are no clear trends of improvement. Similarly, there has been a shortfall in relative productivity, especially in manufacturing and some other sectors. During the early part of the 1990s, our wage levels began to decline in relation to those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
On a previous occasion, when referring to the development of the single agency, the Minister talked about innovation and research and development as the golden thread that would run through the structure and purpose of the new body. I welcome that, not least because there is so much evidence to show that increasing the level of research and development will, in turn, have an impact on the level of relative productivity and general industrial competitiveness. With those three points in mind, I commend the Bill.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: The amalgamation of the IDB, LEDU, the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, the business function of the Tourist Board and the business support division of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment was a high priority on the wish-list of much of the corporate community — indeed, most of the political community — in Northern Ireland for many years. I am thankful that that wish is now set to become reality.
I pay tribute to the work of many. I have no doubt that the process would have been significantly slower, and perhaps non-existent, had it not been for the work of the Executive, the Assembly and the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Although I do not want to single out any individual, I feel that Members will forgive me for recognising the unique role played by the Minister. He has shown a single-minded determination to make the changes that he feels are required to face the commercial challenges of the twenty-first century. Many of us agree with him. Perhaps it is no accident, for his views were honed in the city hall in Belfast where, in the past, he and myself and others experienced only frustration and despair in dealing with the predecessor of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
That said, the Bill is largely functional. It is difficult to disagree with it, because the functional role is largely taking over the existing liabilities and responsibilities. My serious concerns with the new agency are to do with its philosophy and culture, rather than the purely functional aspects. The Minister, in the course of his speech, suggested that the philosophy and culture would not change too much. I worry about that. I believe that the culture has to change quite a lot.
If we were to use a couple of words to sum up the restructuring process, they would be "creating synergy". At the heart of the process is the hope that the synergy of combining public sector experience with private sector expertise will significantly strengthen the hand of those promoting and nurturing new business in Northern Ireland. It has long been held that to get the proper calibre of investment, to provide the growth strategies required for new business and to target new areas for research, we needed to have a much stronger private sector influence. I hope that the decision to open up a space for private sector influence will make a significant contribution to the welfare of the whole community.
We have been assured that Invest Northern Ireland will not simply be IDB with three additional arms flailing about wildly. I believe that there is still a risk of such an outcome. The work of the new agency could be hampered by a heavy overlay of bureaucracy. The Civil Service has a key role to play in the process but, for better or worse, it should not have the dominant role. Too much bureaucracy strangles the culture of enterprise and risk. The safety mentality is at odds with the corporate culture of the bodies that we are trying to attract. Getting the balance right between, on the one hand, accountability and political control and, on the other, opening things up to commercial realities is at the nub of the matter.
Like other Members who have spoken, I salute the IDB and other bodies such as LEDU and the IRTU for the work that they have done. Invest Northern Ireland must be market-led and outcome-driven. We must speak the language of corporate USA, corporate Europe and corporate Britain — the language of marketing. The new agency must decide what it wants to achieve and what shape Northern Ireland business — Northern Ireland plc — should take in the next five, 10, or 15 years.
The top priority for the new agency — I have mentioned it before — is to create an open, dynamic and committed strategy for research and development. If that is not built in at the core of everything and at every level, we will never be able to do what we want to do. We have had some successes recently with call centres, software projects, and so on, but research and development is crucially important if we are to identify the opportunities offered by rapidly evolving technology. It is not a new approach on this island. In the 1980s, senior figures in the Industrial Development Agency (IDA) and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in the South made a major effort to identify opportunities and put their economy in a position to attract new investment. The result was what is referred to as the "Celtic tiger". I would not overrate the "Celtic tiger", but the Southern Irish economy was given a major boost.
We cannot offer a 10% corporation tax rate here, but we can offer many advantages. Our greatest strength is our people. There is a large pool of well-trained, highly educated people, ready and able to work, if the work is available for them. We also have a range of incentives that we can offer to those who might wish to invest here. We cannot simply react to events; we must think and act strategically, and research and development is a key component of that.
If we want to be market leaders in new and emerging fields, it is imperative that research and development be at the top of our list of priorities. We have had many success stories in the past few years in areas as diverse as global e-mail, wireless application protocol (WAP) technology and electronic components. Many indigenous companies triumphed. We must encourage others, and to do that we need an environment that is conducive to doing business.
Above all, we need to remove the fear and stigma of failure in business. Last August some Committee members accompanied the Minister on a visit to the United States, where failure is almost a qualification for future success. Those who have failed and have used that experience to come back and succeed are among the top business people in the United States. However, those who do not try at all will never succeed.
In Silicon Valley, California, which we hear a great deal about, the most respected leaders are those who have failed. Some of them have failed more than once and yet rise and fight again. In Northern Ireland, we tend to write off people who fail. In doing so, we are probably choking our potential future resource. Someone who has almost made it to the summit of Mount Everest has a hell of a lot of experience that can be brought to bear in climbing a slightly less elevated mountain.
Invest Northern Ireland should be a guiding light in creating a more business-friendly environment and in doing so should be the engine that makes things happen. If that can be attained, the restructuring will have achieved many of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s objectives.

Ms Jane Morrice: I welcome the Bill and the close co-operation that there has been between the Minister and the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. The Industrial Development Bill is an important step in the modernisation of Northern Ireland’s approach to economic and industrial development. It is important that we get it right. The new agency is a vast undertaking, and it will become a super-agency with a combined budget for this year of at least £200 million.
The important message at the end of the Minister’s statement was that the emphasis must be on getting the job done and not on bureaucracy. There is an absolute commitment that Invest Northern Ireland will not become tied up in its own bureaucracy as a result of being a super-agency. It must always keep its feet on the ground and get its priorities right.
The Minister mentioned the composition of the board; he suggested that, as far as possible, it should be representative of the community. That representation of the community should take gender balance into account. Sadly, there has been a lack of women at the top of the economic development tree in Northern Ireland. That is reflected in the world of economic development. It is one area in which women do not appear at the top of the management structure. It would be appropriate if as much as possible could be done to make the board representative of the gender balance in Northern Ireland.
Certain staffing representations were made, and the Equality Commission proofed the Bill on those grounds. The facts speak for themselves. A breakdown of staff according to gender is available for the new agency. Fifty-one per cent of the staff are female and 49% are male — exactly representative of society. However, at senior management level — principal and above — 16% of the staff are female and 84% are male. That is not acceptable today. Proactive measures are needed to encourage the promotion of women. Thirty-nine per cent of staff in middle management are female, but something must be done to break that glass ceiling and allow women to rise to their rightful positions in top management in economic development. It is right that people are nominated to the economic development forum, but it would be nice if something could be done to get more women involved in the forum. Their voices are important at that level also.
I want to talk about the geographical balance of the aid provided by the agencies in Northern Ireland. It may be a policy matter, but perhaps it could be reflected in the functions of the new agency. I have read the figures of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and its agencies on the geographical spread of funding and support.
I will begin with the Industrial Research Technology Unit (IRTU) and the thousands of pounds committed. I note that north Down and south Down are at the bottom of the heap as regards research and development. It comes as quite a surprise to me that that is the case, when other areas can rise to £2 million or £3 million. My calculation is that south Down is getting £0·2 million. The geographical balance of aid is important.
I would like to talk about the geographical balance of IDB assistance by district council area. Although I represent North Down, I am astounded that Moyle does not feature. Perhaps there is a statistical explanation for that. There has been virtually nothing for Moyle in investments and IDB assistance by district council area in the last five years — and nothing for Armagh.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Member give way?

Ms Jane Morrice: No, I want to get to these points.
There has been nothing for Armagh, and that is an important point. I would be interested to hear the explanation for it. It could not be because those areas have no investment potential.
I welcome the fact that the Bill will promote the efficient use of energy in industry. It is part and parcel of the amalgamation that is part of the legislation. I would like to see much greater advances in that area, and I would like more notice to be taken of energy efficiency, renewable energy and aid for renewable energy. That is an important priority. Dr McDonnell referred to research and development. That is important, but I believe that green energy, whether it be energy efficiency or renewable energy, is very important.
The Minister said that there should be
"maximum freedom and flexibility for Invest Northern Ireland and appropriate control and proper accountability".
That is vitally important, and we will watch it with a great deal of interest. Dr McDonnell commented on the philosophy and culture. We believe that as far as possible there should be a grass-roots culture, which should protect and invest in local indigenous industry, while being farsighted in getting new industries on board.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I commend the Minister for getting the Bill to this stage. He has has gone into great detail about the new agency, Invest Northern Ireland, and the transfer of staff.
I would like to make a special plea to the Minister, and he will not be surprised to hear that it is for the north-west. Derry has been recognised in report after report as a regional hub. Would it not be eminently sensible for Invest Northern Ireland to have a substantial presence in the Maiden City? The closure of the IDB office some years ago left a particularly bitter taste in the mouth of the people of Derry, especially of those people who were actively involved in the economic and industrial regeneration of the city. The Minister has a unique opportunity to correct a wrong and at the same time to build upon Derry’s spirit of enterprise and innovation. I ask the Minister to facilitate Invest Northern Ireland in locating a substantial presence in the north- west, particularly in our own Maiden City — not just a few additional jobs in the Derry office, but a real presence. It is important that the Minister act now. After Invest Northern Ireland is set up, the arms-length relationship will reduce the Minister’s influence in decisions on job locations. For too long, the people of Derry have had to make do, without a substantial presence. I ask the Minister to address the matter.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. This is an important Bill, and it has the impact that the Committee wanted. However, for the rest of us, its importance lies in what the new body might do in comparison with what has been done in the past in our own areas. I welcome the change to what is perhaps a superagency, but an important factor is that people will be watching what will happen. This body is not LEDU and IDB repackaged; it must make an impact on its own. However, I am concerned that there has been some jockeying of the previous bodies to make way for the future body. I hope that this is a change for the better.
Since 1982, massive changes have taken place in the global economy. The new body will have a completely different agenda to work to. It must deliver locally for small and medium-sized businesses in rural areas, and it must help the individual. An agency with glossy annuals is of no use if it neglects the representatives of small business who read of what can be achieved in the media but can achieve nothing for themselves. That perception must be surmounted by the new body; it must make a different image for itself by helping small businesses to achieve.
It was said that IDB and LEDU have delivered equitably. Fermanagh people would not necessarily go along with that. The difficulty with the way that those bodies were set up was that they were not able to deliver to small businesses. We hope that that will change. The economy in Fermanagh and Tyrone is like that of many other rural areas. It depends on small rather than large businesses. Businesses that create jobs for 50 plus employees often fall between two stools, while businesses started by single entrepreneurs that create between five and 10 jobs fail for lack of capital. The local challenge must be dealt with. Competitiveness and benchmarking against the achievements of the South and other countries such as the USA are critical. The South is the world’s second largest exporter of IT software, the first being the USA. That is a considerable achievement, but such an approach also runs the risk of putting all the eggs in one basket.
I look forward to seeing the outcomes and achievements of this body. There is a mindset among people in many institutions — including, in some instances, the Civil Service — that everything stops at the end of the M1. Such people do not consider sending investors to places west of the Bann. That mindset must change. At the very least, investors must be encouraged to move to other areas. In the South, investment in the outer reaches is actively promoted. Perhaps that can be done here.
There is no doubt that we are limited to areas that people want to invest in. Some people may want to build their factory in Belfast or Craigavon, and we cannot do much about that. However, local Governments such as ours can actively promote areas, encourage investors to visit those areas and to see them as places where corporate people can enjoy a good quality of life. Quality of life is almost as important as the distance one has to travel for business.
The IT industry does not require transport over long distances. It can also work to enhance the environment in areas such as Fermanagh, where the environment is an important factor. On the other hand, people such as Sean Quinn would not be allowed to build anything today if it were up to the planners.
Designated tourism areas are important. We will gain much from tourism, but there are other industries that we would like to see moving to Fermanagh and Tyrone. The changes that will come as a result of the erection of the new body will be for the betterment of the people in those areas, improving their quality of life and creating jobs.

Sir Reg Empey: I have listened carefully to what was said, and I will try to reply to as many points as possible. We will look at Hansard later and, if necessary, I will pick up on any concerns that Members have expressed if I miss them now.
Dr Birnie referred to the importance of having the right person at the top of the organisation. I assure him that the Department has been thinking about that. We have appointed special consultants, with whom I spent some time in London, and we went through the profile of the type of person that we would wish to see occupying that position. We also recognise Dr McDonnell’s point that the appointee would have to be given a package appropriate to the post. We have taken advice on that. We have compared the situation with that in other jurisdictions, and we believe that we have arrived at a competitive package. I made it clear to the consultants that the person must know what a customer is. That type of experience is crucial to performing what will be a very important function. The person involved will preside over an organisation of 700 or 800 people with a budget of approximately £200 million per annum. It is an important and responsible job. It will involve interfacing with the public sector, and there are accountability issues. Therefore it is a high profile position.
Dr Birnie also mentioned the issue of productivity per head. There are a number of ways in which the Minister and my Department will continue to influence that. Three-year corporate plans will have to be produced, and there will be an annual operating plan. We will have to agree those plans, and it will be clear that we have to set out targets and objectives for the agency. That is the mechanism through which we intend to have influence over those issues. Targets based on benchmarking and scoping studies will have to be set, and the Assembly will have to be able to evaluate whether those targets are being achieved. Indeed, that will be one of the ways of measuring the success, or otherwise, of the agency.
Raising performance levels and having a balanced view of the past are important, but it is felt that we have moved on, that businesses have changed and that the previous agencies were set up at different points over a 30-year period. Dr Birnie referred to the unique way that Northern Ireland previously divided businesses by size, when the principles very often remained the same. Also, large employers are no longer around as they were 30 years ago. It is time for a change. I want to make it clear to Members that it is not simply a matter of bolting together the existing agencies — we are creating a new one. I want to come back to that point.
Dr Birnie and Dr McDonnell referred to research and development, which I said was the golden thread that will run right through the agency. There is absolutely no doubt — Dr Birnie and Dr McDonnell have raised this point on many occasions — that if the innovation strategy is not brought right to the core of the agency, we will have failed. I readily accept that.
Things have moved on, and there must be a different approach. Many ideas have been generated through research in universities, by private companies and even in the public sector. Industry can convert those ideas into productive processes or tradable services that will enable us to bring products to the market and differentiate us from the low-wage economies.
Dr McDonnell also mentioned the philosophy of the agency. I hope that he did not pick me up wrongly. I do not anticipate that we will simply carry forward what was there before. There must be a new approach. I accept entirely that it must be based on innovation. Private sector involvement and influence will, of course, be crucial. However, we readily accept — and the Minister of Finance and Personnel is watching this closely — that although that there has been a reduction in the assistance offered by the state over recent years, it is not only money that matters to businesses. They require a whole range of other services and assistance that can be critical to their ability to survive and grow. The growth of small businesses and an increase in the start rate will be two of the benchmarks and targets that we must set. Although the sustainability of our new businesses is quite high, our start rate is low. That is another challenge that has been set up for us.
The concept of IDB with three additional arms flailing around is certainly not my vision, nor that of the Committee or of Members. We see a totally different organisation, but the new agency must start somewhere, and it will start with persons who currently work for the other bodies. It will take time to get going, but it will ultimately have control of its own destiny. Our task will be to ensure that the new agency is set targets and asked to do things that are realistic.
I have referred to the stigma of failure. Dr McDonnell is of a similar view to myself. It is a problem in Northern Ireland and in these islands. In the United States, the attitude varies from place to place, but people there do not wear bags over their heads if a business does not work out. As Dr McDonnell said, those people are often at a premium because they have had an important experience.
The issue of accountability has been mentioned. The new agency has been referred to as a very large organisation with a substantial budget. However, while wanting to have the maximum flexibility, we also want to ensure that the accountability arrangements are appropriate and that this House continues to have sight of and control of the resource. As I said in my opening statement, my officials are working with officials from the Department of Finance and Personnel to ensure that the issues of accountability are properly dealt with. The Department of Finance and Personnel has specific responsibility for those issues, and we will work closely with it as we move forward to ensure that there is access for the Comptroller and Auditor General and that Members of this House have full and free access to all financial and other information.
Ms Morrice referred to a number of issues, and I want to draw one or two points to her attention. She raised the question of gender issues, not only at board level but also at staff and other levels. She will be aware that some weeks ago we advertised very widely in local papers and further afield for membership of the board. We received in excess of 150 responses, but I have to say that the number of applications from women was in single figures. I want to put on record that, from a gender point of view, that response was exceedingly low and disappointing. That does not go into the nature and quality of the applications received, which are now being dealt with; rather, it refers to the volume of applications from women. That is a matter of very grave concern to our officials, who are currently interviewing for the board. We have of course brought in an independent figure to sit in on those interviews, and I am satisfied that the structure of those will meet with Members’ approval.
Clearly, the concern about gender relates not only to the board. I take Ms Morrice’s point. When this agency is up and running it will have its own equality schemes, and those will have to be approved in the normal way. Currently, schemes such as IDB’s are covered by the departmental scheme. IDB is at present an integral part of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Industry. There is no doubt that there is an awareness of the issue, not only in the economic development agencies but throughout the service. I know that the Minister of Finance and Personnel is watching these matters carefully, as we have made commitments in the Programme for Government to achieve progress in these matters right across the board.
I must make a number of points on the geographical balance of aid. IDB and the economic development agencies have client companies in different locations. Moyle was mentioned, and regrettably we have only two client companies in that district council area. It is not necessarily the case that those particular businesses either come forward with, or can be encouraged to — or wish to — put themselves forward for, any of the schemes operated by the Department. It also depends on the nature of the businesses. Ms Morrice also mentioned north Down and south Down. Again, with regard to research and development, it depends on the concentration of businesses and where the most appropriate businesses for that type of activity are located. There are historical issues that are outside our control. I can assure the Member that the question of distribution is one that is continuously and consistently brought to our attention. However, Members have to be aware that business is where business is.
Mr McHugh — and this also relates to Ms Morrice’s question — raised the issue of distribution west of the Bann. As the Member knows, the Department has a number of targets. One of those is that 75% of first-time visits should be to New TSN areas. We slightly exceeded that target last year, with about 76% of first-time visits going to New TSN areas.
Where possible, we encourage companies to visit and to invest, and, as I have said many times before in the House, we do bring forward enhanced offers of assistance to companies that are prepared to invest in New TSN areas. On some occasions, companies will avail of those opportunities, but on other occasions they will refuse them point-blank. We cannot force companies — and the Member acknowledged this — to establish themselves in areas where they do not consider it to be in their interests to do so. We can encourage and persuade, but we cannot force.
The commitment to try to achieve distribution along these lines is undoubtedly there. The Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr McHugh) will be aware that I have been in that constituency on a number of occasions recently. I am aware of the difficulties, and I am aware of the feeling of isolation and the feeling that perhaps Belfast-based agencies do not care. However, I assure Mr McHugh that that is not the case: we do care; I care. There are commitments in the departmental plans, and I believe that it is for us to ensure that the agency is charged, when established, with achieving targets that are consistent with the Programme for Government objectives.
Mrs Courtney, uncharacteristically, encouraged me to ensure that additional investment went to Londonderry. I cannot imagine why that was so. It seems to come up frequently. On a serious note, there is a commitment that the new agency will have a regional dimension. That commitment has been made frequently in the House, and I reiterate it today. I cannot yet say precisely where the offices will be located, but there is a commitment to having a significant regional dimension.
For practical reasons, the Department must take some action to establish the shadow board and to appoint the chief executive. If we do not, it will be next year before the board has any statutory powers, and we cannot wait that long. Therefore the Department must take the lead and get a few things started. However, I want to consult with the shadow board, which I hope to appoint before long, so that it can have ownership of some of these policy issues.
I repeat that we are initially appointing a small shadow board because I did not wish to anticipate the decisions of the House or the Committees on the actual size of the board, which will be dealt with in the legislation. The intention is that when the legislation is passed, there will be a second tranche of appointments to the board to bring it up to its agreed final strength. People who applied for positions on the shadow board and who were not appointed will, if they so wish, be automatically re-entered for the second stage of the competition.
I place on record my thanks to my departmental staff, and in particular those in the restructuring branch, for the long hours and months — indeed, over a year’s work — that have gone into this; it has been painstaking. There have been many hills and hollows to get over, but the realisation of our objectives is closer than ever before.
I hope that I have covered most of the points that were made. If I have failed to do so, we will pick them up later and contact Members with any points that were missed. The aim and objective of the Bill is not simply to shuffle the pack: it is not simply doing it for the sake of doing it.
The reason for the Bill is to ensure that a fresh look is brought to the economy. The current economy is different from the one that existed 30 years ago when some of those organisations were founded. The nature of business then was totally different from today. If we go back only five years, the extent to which the economy has changed is dramatic. The pace of events, globalisation, the move away from traditional industries, and the rise of Third-World countries with their low-labour-cost economies were not threats 20 or 30 years ago.
We are a very small region, and nobody owes Northern Ireland a living. Therefore we have to make sure that everything we do maximises the results and the cost- effectiveness of business. That will ensure that our economy can grow and strengthen itself. Several Members have identified structural weaknesses, but we have achieved great things in a short time. All of the agencies are entitled to receive their share of criticism. However, I would like to remind people that 20 or 30 years ago, when people were marketing Northern Ireland, the CNN image of this place was a war zone. People were knocking on doors and trying to sell Northern Ireland as a place for investment.
Since I started this job, it has never ceased to amaze me that we have such a resilient economy, although it has weaknesses. Scotland, Wales, the Republic and mainland Europe did not have to deal with the problem that we faced, which was a huge marketing disadvantage. We must understand the backdrop against which those who were charged with the job of trying to market this Province had to work. There are significant pockets of unemployment, but here we are today, enjoying the lowest rates of unemployment for generations. That is a tribute not only to the workforce and the businesspeople who have shown such resilience, but also to the agency and Department staff who attempted to maintain a degree of economic stability against a background that was anything but stable.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Industrial Development Bill (NIA 18/00) be agreed.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Budget (No 2) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Clauses 1 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Ms Jane Morrice: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Budget (No 2) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Committee Business: Assembly Standing Orders

The following motion stood on the Order Paper:
In Standing Order 58 delete all and insert:
"(1) There shall be a Standing Committee of the Assembly to be known as the Audit Committee which shall:
(a) exercise the functions laid upon the Assembly by Section 66 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;
(b) recommend to the Assembly the annual salary payable to the holder of the office of Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; and
(c) recommend to the Assembly a person to be nominated for appointment to the office of Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland in accordance with Section 65(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
(2) In discharging its functions under this Standing Order the Committee shall have regard to the advice of the Public Accounts Committee and the Department of Finance and Personnel.
(3) In accordance with Section 66(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, no more than one member of the Committee may be a member of the Public Accounts Committee.
(4) The Committee shall have a membership of five and a quorum of two."
[The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures (Mr C Murphy)]

Ms Jane Morrice: Is the motion moved or not moved?

Mr Conor Murphy: Not moved, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Ms Jane Morrice: We move to the next motion on the Order Paper.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
I beg to move
In Standing Order 10(2), line 3, delete "10.30 am" and insert "12.00 midday".
On 23 April the Assembly agreed to suspend, until the summer recess, Standing Order 10(2), which sets the times of the Monday sittings as from 10.30 am to 6.00 pm. The purpose of the suspension was to give the Business Committee the freedom to set a later starting time for Monday sittings. This would allow parties time to consider the forthcoming week’s business. When I introduced the motion I made the point that the 10.30 am start time did not allow parties sufficient time to hold meetings; neither did it provide them with the opportunity to discuss amendments to motions that had been tabled that morning.
In moving that motion, I explained that the Committee’s research on Monday plenary timings showed that less than six hours were spent in plenary on Mondays. Those six hours were almost always interrupted by a lunch break that, until the 23 April, lasted on average 1 hour and 45 minutes. The research also showed that business often stopped before 6.00 pm. These conclusions led the Committee to believe that a start time of 12.00 pm would provide sufficient time on a Monday for the Assembly to conduct its business.
However, rather than make a permanent change, the Committee agreed that the new timings should be experimental until the summer recess, whereupon decisions on a permanent change could be taken. During the debate on the motion, several Members expressed concerns about the proposed new timings. They were concerned that the Business Committee would have less time for Monday’s business, that the time for debate would be reduced and that Wednesday sittings might be needed in order to complete business. My response was to emphasise that a change would only become permanent if it proved beneficial to the Assembly.
A LeasCheann Comhairle, the Committee on Procedures has reviewed this experiment and is content that the change has been beneficial and that Members’ concerns have proved unfounded. Members may be interested to note that of the six Monday sittings since the new start time of noon was introduced, only two have lasted until 6.00 pm; three have finished before 5.00 pm; there has been a lunch break during four of the sittings; and on two occasions the lunch break has lasted more than an hour. To date, it has not been necessary to sit on a Wednesday.
The Assembly is sitting this Wednesday, but not because of a lack of time on Monday. Rather, it is due to the requirements of the five-day rule for stages of legislation as set out in Standing Orders, and this Wednesday is the earliest date that three Bills on the Order Paper can have their Final Stage considered. In the light of the above facts, it is clear that Members’ initial concerns on this proposal have not been realised. There has been sufficient time to consider Assembly business, and there have been no complaints to the Procedures Committee from the Business Committee about time pressures or about its being forced to curtail the time allocated to items of business. Similarly, there has been no adverse impact on the Assembly commitment to family-friendly policies as there has been no extension to plenary times on a Tuesday.
In conclusion, the Committee on Procedures believes this proposal is of benefit to the Assembly and supports the change to Standard Orders.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 10(2) line 3 delete "10.30 am" and insert "12 midday".

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move
In Standing Order 64 delete all and insert:
"(1) A Register of Members’ Interests, which shall list the categories of registrable interest, shall be established, published and made available for public inspection.
(2) The Clerk of Standards shall compile, and from time to time publish, the Register of Members’ Interests.
(3) Every Member of the Assembly shall inform the Clerk of Standards of such particulars of his/her registrable interests as shall be required, and of any alterations to such interests within four weeks of each change occurring.
(4) Before taking part in any debate or proceeding of the Assembly or its Committees, a Member shall declare any interest, financial or otherwise, which is relevant to that debate or proceeding, where such interest is held by the Member or an immediate relative.
(5) No Member of the Assembly shall, in any proceeding of the Assembly, in return for payment or benefit mentioned in paragraph 61 of the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members, approved by the Assembly on 14 December 1999 [‘the Guide’]:
(a) advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual;
(b) urge any other Member of the Assembly to do so.
(6) Where it appears to the Committee on Standards and Privileges that a Member has failed to comply with, or has contravened any provision of this Order, the Committee may make a report to the Assembly.
(7) A report made under paragraph (6) may contain a recommendation that the Member:
(a) be excluded from proceedings of the Assembly for a specified period; and
(b) have his/her rights and privileges as a Member withdrawn for that period.
(8) In this Standing Order:-
‘Financial interest’ means any registrable interest other than one falling within paragraph 26 or 27 of the Guide;
‘Registrable interest’ means any category of registrable interest falling within paragraphs 14 to 37 of the Guide."
The proposed amendment to Standing Order 64 will give effect to the principal recommendations of the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges entitled ‘Inquiry into the Possible Appointment of an Assembly Commissioner for Standards’, which was considered and approved unanimously by the Assembly on 2 April 2001.
Also, the current Standing Order 64 does not conform fully to what is set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 43 of the 1998 Act states that Standing Orders shall provide for
"a register of interests of members of the Assembly".
Registrable interests are to be as defined in Standing Orders, and currently there is no such definition. The current Standing Order also mentions pecuniary interests. This is not defined, nor is it in the wording of the 1998 Act, which refers to financial interest. The Act says "as defined in standing orders".
The Assembly legal adviser has suggested that the definitions as set out in the ‘Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members’, which was approved by the Assembly on 14 December 1999, are sufficient. The proposed amendment to this Standing Order includes replacing the term "pecuniary interest" with "financial interest", defines the categories of registrable interests and financial interests and makes clear the responsibility of the Assembly Clerk of Standards for the compilation and publication of the Register of Members’ Interests.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 are new to the Standing Order and give the Committee on Standards and Privileges the authority to make recommendations for sanctions and penalties to be imposed upon any Member of the Assembly against whom a complaint has been upheld. This is provided for in section 43(5) of the 1998 Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing order 64 delete all and insert:
"(1) A Register of Members’ Interests, which shall list the categories of registrable interest, shall be established, published and made available for public inspection.
(2) The Clerk of Standards shall compile, and from time to time publish, the Register of Members’ Interests.
(3) Every Member of the Assembly shall inform the Clerk of Standards of such particulars of his/her registrable interests as shall be required, and of any alterations to such interests within four weeks of each change occurring.
(4) Before taking part in any debate or proceeding of the Assembly or its Committees, a Member shall declare any interest, financial or otherwise, which is relevant to that debate or proceeding, where such interest is held by the Member or an immediate relative.
(5) No Member of the Assembly shall, in any proceeding of the Assembly, in return for payment or benefit mentioned in paragraph 61 of the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members, approved by the Assembly on 14 December 1999 [‘the Guide’]:
(a) advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual;
(b) urge any other Member of the Assembly to do so.
(6) Where it appears to the Committee on Standards and Privileges that a Member has failed to comply with, or has contravened any provision of this Order, the Committee may make a report to the Assembly.
(7) A report made under paragraph (6) may contain a recommendation that the Member:
(a) be excluded from proceedings of the Assembly for a specified period; and
(b) have his/her rights and privileges as a Member withdrawn for that period.
(8) In this Standing Order:-
‘Financial interest’ means any registrable interest other than one falling within paragraph 26 or 27 of the Guide;
‘Registrable interest’ means any category of registrable interest falling within paragraphs 14 to 37 of the Guide."

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move
In Standing Order 57 delete all and insert:
"57. COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
(1) There shall be a Standing Committee of the Assembly called the Committee on Standards and Privileges:
(a) to consider specific matters relating to privilege referred to it by the Assembly;
(b) to oversee the work of the Assembly Clerk of Standards; to examine the arrangements for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interests established by the Assembly; and to review from time to time the form and content of those registers;
(c) to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches of any code of conduct to which the Assembly has agreed and which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention;
(d) to recommend any modifications to the code of conduct mentioned in paragraph (c);
(e) to perform the functions described in Standing Order 64(6) and (7);
(f) to make a report to the Assembly on any matter falling within this Standing Order.
(2) The Committee shall be appointed at the commencement of every Assembly and shall have power to send for persons, papers and records that are relevant to its enquiries.
(3) There shall be an officer of the Assembly, to be known as the Assembly Commissioner for Standards, who shall carry out an investigation into any matter falling within paragraph (4) referred to him by the Assembly Clerk of Standards and shall make a report thereon to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
(4) Those matters are:
(a) matters relating to Members and Assembly privilege, including alleged breach of privilege;
(b) specific complaints about Members made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests; and
(c) matters relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged contravention of:
(i) the Code of Conduct for Members of the Assembly; or
(ii) the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members, approved by the Assembly on 14 December 1999.
(5) A report made under paragraph (3) may not include any recommendations for any sanction or penalty to be imposed upon any Member of the Assembly.
(6) The Assembly Commissioner for Standards shall not, in the exercise of any of his functions, be subject to the direction or control of the Assembly.
(7) The Assembly may not dismiss the Assembly Commissioner for Standards unless:
(a) the Assembly so resolves; and
(b) the resolution is passed with the support of a number of Members of the Assembly which equals or exceeds two-thirds of the total number of seats in the Assembly."
In moving the motion, the Committee on Procedures is putting into effect the recommendations of a report, which was unanimously agreed by the Assembly on 2 April 2001, making provision for it to be the duty of the Committee on Standards and Privileges to oversee the work of the Assembly Clerk of Standards, examine the arrangements for the compilation, maintenance, accessibility and review of a Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest, consider specific matters relating to privilege referred to the Committee and any matters relating to the conduct of Members which are brought to the Committee’s attention, make a report to the Assembly on any matter falling within this Standing Order and recommend to the Assembly that sanctions be applied to any Member who has failed to comply with or who has contravened any provision of this Standing Order.
In addition to implementing the recommendations of the Committee’s report, the proposed Standing Order will also provide for the appointment of an Assembly Commissioner for Standards to investigate and report on matters relating to Assembly Members and Assembly privilege. It sets out the matters which the commissioner may investigate, including alleged breach of privilege, complaints in relation to the declaration or registration of interests, alleged contravention of the Code of Conduct and the ‘Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members’. It enables the commissioner to carry out his or her functions without being under the direction or control of the Assembly. A recommendation to the Assembly on sanctions against any Member will remain within the remit of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
Finally, the Standing Order sets out the procedure for the dismissal of the commissioner. The requirement for any such resolution would require the support of a number of Members equal to at least two thirds of the total number of Assembly seats, that is, of 72 Members. That is the same as for the removal from office of the Comptroller and Auditor General as laid down in section 65(2)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I understand that further legal advice has led to an amendment to this motion being brought forward by the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. This Standing Order and Standing Order 64 are intended to ensure that we as Members are seen to behave with propriety. This is an important issue, and one which we, as Members, will be well aware is currently the cause of considerable public interest and concern.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I beg to move the following amendment:
In proposed Standing Order 57(7) line 1 delete "the Assembly may not dismiss" and insert after "Standards" "shall not be dismissed".
As the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures said, the amendments to Standing Order 57 would provide the means to ensure implementation in principle of the recommendations of the first report by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, inquiring into the possible appointment of an Assembly Commissioner for Standards.
I support this motion, which will give effect to the Committee’s recommendations on sanctions and privileges and will provide the enabling power for the Commissioner for Standards to investigate complaints made against Members of the Assembly. In supporting the motion, it has also become necessary for me to move an amendment to section 7 of the Standing Order.
Following last-minute legal advice, it has become apparent that a minor adjustment to section 7 is required in order to ensure that the terms of the Standing Order accurately reflect the role and responsibility of the Assembly if consideration is being given to the dismissal of an Assembly Commissioner for Standards. The intention of section 7 is to put in place a framework in which the Assembly shall determine that an Assembly Commissioner for Standards is to be dismissed. As currently drafted, however, there is an ambiguous reference to the dismissal process. My proposed amendment makes an adjustment to this wording and removes any ambiguity relating to the powers of the Assembly.
In moving this amendment, I want to emphasise, as Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, my broad support for the motion put down by Conor Murphy. I ask all Members to support the motion as amended because it will provide reassurance to the general public that Assembly Members perform their responsibility to the highest standard that they rightly expect.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to query the reason for the amendment. One concern that I have is that it would remove any procedure that the Assembly would have to police the work of the commissioner. While the commissioner would carry out — and be expected to carry out — an important role, it would also be vital that he or she would be subject to some degree of control by the Assembly. I am at a loss to know why, as I understand the amendment, the Assembly may not dismiss a commissioner under any circumstances.
It seems I have the wrong end of the stick.

Mr Donovan McClelland: As I have said, the purpose of the amendment is to remove any ambiguity in the wording; that is the primary concern. The Assembly would make the decision about the removal of a commissioner, but it is the Assembly Commission that would carry out the work. Its aim is to remove the ambiguity of the process, rather than to create a further problem.

Ms Jane Morrice: Mr Murphy, do you also want the opportunity to wind up?

Mr Conor Murphy: No, Mr McClelland has answered Mr Kennedy’s query.
Question 
Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 57 delete all and insert:
"57. COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
(1) There shall be a Standing Committee of the Assembly called the Committee on Standards and Privileges:
(a) to consider specific matters relating to privilege referred to it by the Assembly;
(b) to oversee the work of the Assembly Clerk of Standards; to examine the arrangements for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interests established by the Assembly; and to review from time to time the form and content of those registers;
(c) to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches of any code of conduct to which the Assembly has agreed and which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention;
(d) to recommend any modification to the code of conduct mentioned in paragraph (c);
(e) to perform the functions described in Standing Order 64(6) and (7);
(f) to make a report to the Assembly on any matter falling within this Standing Order.
(2) The Committee shall be appointed at the commencement of every Assembly and shall have power to send for persons, papers and records that are relevant to its enquiries.
(3) There shall be an officer of the Assembly, to be known as the Assembly Commissioner for Standards, who shall carry out an investigation into any matter falling within paragraph (4) referred to him by the Assembly Clerk of Standards and shall make a report thereon to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
(4) Those matters are:
(a) matters relating to Members and Assembly privilege, including alleged breach of privilege;
(b) specific complaints about Members made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests; and
(c) matters relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged contravention of:
(i) the Code of Conduct for Members of the Assembly; or
(ii) the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members, approved by the Assembly on 14 December 1999.
(5) A report made under paragraph (3) may not include any recommendations for any sanction or penalty to be imposed upon any Member of the Assembly.
(6) The Assembly Commissioner for Standards shall not, in the exercise of any of his functions, be subject to the direction or control of the Assembly.
(7) The Assembly Commissioner for Standards shall not be dismissed unless:
(a) the Assembly so resolves; and
(b) the resolution is passed with the support of a number of Members of the Assembly which equals or exceeds two-thirds of the total number of seats in the Assembly."

Public-Private Partnerships

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
I beg to move
That this Assembly takes note of the report prepared by the Committee for Finance and Personnel following its inquiry in to the use of public-private partnerships (7/00/R).
Members will have received copies of the Committee for Finance and Personnel’s report on the use of public- private partnerships (PPP) yesterday. The Committee’s inquiry into PPP addresses an issue of critical importance. It is a key time in the debate on the role of the private sector in public services. The issues are vital and relevant to the Assembly, to the Executive and, most importantly, to the public at large.
We face a very serious problem in how we finance and procure major improvements to the public infrastructure. Finance will be needed over the coming years to fulfil the deficit. The shortfall runs into billions of pounds. It is estimated that health, education and housing need at least £850million now. Water, roads and public transport will need about £4billion over the next 10 to 20 years.
The Minister of Finance and Personnel confirmed the size of the problem we face. In his evidence to the Committee he said:
"If we use all the resources in the Northern Ireland block for investment in the conventional procurement manner, we will fail to achieve our goals."
The Committee agreed that in pursuing its scrutiny and policy advice role, it needs to examine the extent of the deficit of investment in public services and infrastructure and the part that public-private partnerships might play in financing the deficit and improving services.
The Committee began its inquiry in March. It has generated a great deal of interest from a wide range of people and organisations involved in the debate on PPP. We heard from people working locally, in Dublin, London and further afield. They came from hospitals, schools, trade unions, the academic world, international private sector companies and financial institutions, and local and central Government. Nearly 60 substantial papers were submitted, and the key people from those areas were questioned. We examined a range of PPP projects and their effect on users, their value for money, the effects of committing money over a long term, and the patterns and trends that are starting to emerge.
The Committee members spent many hours reading, hearing and analysing evidence. No one to whom we spoke was neutral. People were either enthusiastic or critical of PPP.
I want to thank publicly all those who contributed to the report. In particular, the Committee wants to express its appreciation of the work of the Assembly staff — the Clerks and various people who served the Committee, and the Hansard staff — and also to thank those who provided hospitality and helped during its visits to various locations.
The Committee agreed that, ideally, public finance is preferred for investment. It can be provided at lower interest rates than are generally available in private finance. Using public money ensures that responsibility for provision of public services remains firmly in the public sector.
The Minister of Finance and Personnel, and the Executive, must address the problems of the Barnett formula. That has contributed to underinvestment here. They must seek an increase in grants if public money is to be used to tacke the infrastructure deficit. We recognise that the Treasury is unlikely to meet all of the outstanding financial needs from increased public expenditure in the short term. If that turns out to be true, we must look at other sources of finance to help address the deficit. However, we must continue to lobby and ensure that we get a fair proportion.
The Committee heard evidence on the benefits of revenue and capital bonds, which were deemed a cheaper means of financing public sector projects than PPP. Representatives from the Department for Regional Development also discussed the possibility of a not-for- profit regional investment trust, financed by bonds. The Executive need to rigorously investigate these methods, and the Department of Finance and Personnel, in its own review, needs to clarify their suitability.
The Committee acknowledged that PPPs could be a valuable tool or means of investment if used in the right circumstances. Many of the witnesses, including users of PPPs, were enthusiastic about their benefits. However, other witnesses warned us of the dangers and disadvantages of PPPs, especially if they are used incorrectly. Members will be aware of the ongoing debate on the role of the private sector in public service provision. The Committee calls for caution to be taken in regard to PPP. Care needs to be taken in deciding how, where, and when this method is adopted. We should not blindly follow others down the PPP route.
A recent report by the Institute of Public Policy Research — ‘Building Better Partnerships’ — argues in favour of a pragmatic rather than dogmatic approach to the use of the private sector in public service provision. It also calls for the reform of PPPs if the Government are to succeed in improving the quality of publicly funded services. Their views echo the Committee’s own, and the report gives added weight to our conclusions and recommendations.
The Committee believes that the findings and recommendations of the inquiry will help to ensure that any decisions on PPP are properly taken and that due regard will be given to the overall investment needs of the public sector. More effective use of PPPs and other methods will accelerate investment in public sector infrastructure. This will improve the quality of our public services and economic development.
We discovered that a well-planned programme of PPP projects is being established in the education sector. I congratulate the Minister of Education, the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and their staff on their work in this field.
Nevertheless, we lag behind in other key areas. We need to quickly develop a co-ordinated investment strategy that establishes a sustained programme and flow of projects across administrative boundaries. There will be a need for effective leadership from the Assembly and the Executive, and for a commitment from everyone involved.
A key factor in developing the programme will be the demonstration of value for money throughout the life of each project. I emphasise that this must continue throughout the life of projects. The establishment of value for money will highlight the impact of long-term spending commitments on the Programme for Government and on the quality of public services. The establishment of value for money must involve much greater openness and public accountability in the decision-making process. This point was stressed by many witnesses, particularly trade union representatives.
Among our recommendations is the need to instil in the public a confidence that effective action is being taken to address the deficit. My Committee has made some important recommendations in its report. It is important that the Assembly and the Executive be seen to act quickly and decisively on these recommendations. The recommendations focus on the strategy and structures needed if the Assembly is to be assured that investment in the public sector infrastructure is being tackled effectively and that it will give the best possible value for money. We have learned several important lessons about PPP. The report gives examples of good practice that should be adopted by Departments when they are considering investment. I commend them to the Executive working group, which is reviewing PPP from a departmental perspective.
Members will find the full details of the recommendations in the report. I will concentrate briefly on two key areas. I will start with recommendation 1. First, and of crucial importance, is the need to establish an effective investment strategy. The Programme for Government begins to address this issue, but we need to go much further. The Programme for Government should, of course, underpin the strategy. This should be a unified, cross-departmental investment strategy to address how the deficit in the public infrastructure should be financed and managed in the future. We need to take the idea of joined-up government seriously when we consider investment, especially in areas where investment cuts across public sector boundaries.
A co-ordinated programme of strategic projects should support the strategy. That will enable, for example, early investment to be channelled into pathfinder projects that can best meet the strategy’s objectives — clearly demonstrating value for money and the early development of a broader skill base in the public and private sectors. It is vital that the strategy have the support of all concerned. That includes the private and voluntary sectors and local communities.
PPP is supposed to be all about partnerships, and a social partnership approach should be adopted to achieve this consensus. Departments and their public and private partners need to reassess how they share information. Achieving that support may be difficult. We only have to look at the problems encountered in agreeing health priorities to understand the difficulties of achieving consensus. However, it is important that this happens, if we are to get value for money and provide long-term benefits to the public.
I now move to recommendation 2. The second key recommendation is that the Executive need to establish ministerial responsibility for driving the investment strategy forward. The Minister should be responsible for achieving a partnership across Departments and public bodies. There should be a common approach wherever possible.
The Committee considered that the Minister should set up a temporary working group of representatives from each Department. The group would then develop and drive the strategy forward in the coming months. It would also initiate work on the most appropriate investment methods to be used. Other tasks would be to promote a sustainable flow of projects and to look at the methodologies, skills and guidance.
The Committee also felt that it was important that the group begin the development of a social partnership approach. We found that this was of benefit when we looked at the Dublin situation, where social partnership, and the role of the partners, was crucial in taking forward an investment strategy. Although this work will get the process going, the Committee agreed that the strategy needs to be driven forward over the coming years. Therefore the Committee has recommended that a central investment board or procurement body be established under the control of a designated Minister. That would take on the activities of the working group, and it would become a centre of excellence on investment, procurement and advice for all Departments.
The issues addressed in this report are matters of crucial importance to our future social and economic well-being. My Committee took its duty very seriously and worked hard to achieve consensus and to agree a report that reflects its concerns and proposals for tackling the investment deficit. I commend this report to the Assembly, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Mr James Leslie: I thank the Chairman for his very thorough review of this report that the Committee has just published. This was a major undertaking into an area of potential public procurement that is a hot potato of conflicting opinions. We, I hope, encountered, and gave proper consideration to, all of them.
My first point is that it would be far easier to do this review in 10 years’ time, when you would be able to draw on, perhaps, a maximum of 15 years’ experience of private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships. The initiative started in 1994. The first projects appeared a few years later, and most of the projects that the Committee looked at were very much in their infancy. While it is easy to identify problems that occurred when putting together the contracts, conducting the negotiations and dealing with the bids, it is impossible at this stage to accurately judge how well a 30-year contract has been costed when it has only run for three years.
There is therefore a considerable act of faith involved, particularly by those who are strong advocates of the private finance initiative and public-private partnerships. However, we do not have the luxury of being able to put the clock forward 10 years, so we have to base our assessment on the evidence currently available. The Committee has therefore tried to present as balanced a view as possible of that evidence, given that some of it is inconclusive.
There are a number of important points that raise various issues. First, the provision of public services, which really started to accelerate from the post-war reforms, has meant that 50 years later the Government have become a huge owner and manager of property. Government Departments are now starting to question whether that should be such a major activity of government.
The Committee has recently heard from the buildings and maintenance section of the Department of Finance and Personnel. It has put on the table a bill for £37 million for urgently required refurbishment to key buildings. The spending and prioritisation of that money, and the awarding of the contracts, will be a big job. Over the next few years, it will inevitably involve a great deal of effort. That is an example of an ongoing activity that the Government are confronting.
Members are familiar with the figures involved in the education sector, where £500 million is required to address the shortfall in school buildings. At current rates of spending from traditional procurement methods, that will probably take somewhere in the region of 15 years — perhaps longer — to achieve. During those 15 years, other bills will land.
The Department of Education in particular has been active in using PPPs because it can, in effect, bring some of that expenditure forward. To some extent, it means spending tomorrow’s money today. If £60 million can be spent every year on school buildings, that will mean £600 million being spent over 10 years. By financing the activity through the private sector and paying for it in instalments, the building programme can be brought forward. However, it will have to be paid for in the end — one way or another.
There is a delusion among people that somehow or other you do not pay for it; you most certainly do pay for it — the public sector pays for it. If you buy something through hire purchase it is likely that you will pay a bit more for it than would otherwise be the case. However, one must balance that factor against the benefit of getting the use of the asset much earlier than would otherwise occur.
Another point relating to schools was put to us, with considerable vigour, by the Department of Education and Science in Dublin. Departmental officials stressed to us the great benefit that schoolteachers derive from not having to be concerned with the management and maintenance of the building in which they work.
The feeling in Dublin was that this was so valuable that it was not all that necessary for them to try to put a cost on it. They were in a much happier position than us. They have the money to meet all of their building requirements and can choose whether to do it by traditional public procurement or by some form of PPP.
In a number of cases, they have deliberately chosen to use PPP because of the benefit they foresee in schools not having to be concerned with the problems of management and maintenance of buildings. Therefore one can draw a tentative conclusion that if it is cost-neutral between the traditional procurement and PPP alternatives, then the extra benefits tend to favour going down the PPP route.
Even if there is some cost disadvantage in going down the PPP route, it may still be worthwhile if you think you will get extra benefits from how you will be able to use the facility. The difficulty is in trying to judge the size of the numbers involved over the lifetime of these projects — a typical period would be 20 to 30 years.
There is perhaps a tail-end benefit, and it relates to the current state of the Government estate. The Government own very fine Victorian buildings, which are not particularly helpful for modern use, though they were undoubtedly magnificent state-of-the-art buildings in their day. The same situation may occur now. In 30 years’ time we may own a building that was good to have in 2000 but does not suit its purpose in 2030. It might be beneficial if such a building did not belong to the Government at that time. It could be put back into the lap of the private sector to do something else with, while the Government could contract for a new building that would be state-of-the-art in 2030.
When you are building, one of the advantages you are likely to get through PPP is that you will receive the best of private sector innovation, and you are likely to get the benefit of leading-edge construction techniques.
As the private service provider would be responsible for maintaining the building, it would have to assess carefully the trade-off between how much it spends on construction and how much it will have to spend on maintenance. Under public procurement, the tendency would be to save money now, but possibly pay for that with maintenance costs in the future. The way in which that particular cake is divided is one of the cores of controversy concerning the worthiness of PPPs.
There is another issue arising, and it is one that is particularly topical at the moment. It concerns the fate of public service employees if a private service provider takes over the part of the public service in which they work. We heard a considerable amount of evidence from trade unions on this matter. We also heard from the private sector. The Government at Westminster have made some pronouncements on this matter recently regarding health service employees. It was said that they could be seconded to the private sector. We have not heard a detailed reaction from the private sector about this yet. However, I strongly suspect that it may prove to be much more difficult in practice than the Government imagine. I do not think that that will be the last word on this subject.
I did not find the evidence presented to us about the potential problems for public service employees particularly convincing. It seemed to me that the evidence for the emergence of a two-tier workforce implied that the private sector part of the workforce was the better tier to be in. I do not think that we would have heard so much about it if it were felt that public sector employees were in an advantageous position.
However, I acknowledge that the development of PPPs will remain a controversial issue for some time.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
I have been talking mainly about buildings in relation to schools and hospitals. The Committee was focused, in its deliberations, on the built infrastructure deficit and did not look into the potential for providing public services through the private sector. Had it done so it would not have come up with much enthusiasm for going down that course. It is worth emphasising that we are talking about the deficit in the built infrastructure and how that might be addressed in the short term.
Irrespective of whether infrastructure is built by public procurement or by public-private partnerships, the same construction firms are going to be involved. It is a question of the contract under which they carry out the activity. If we were to engage in a major programme of public-private partnerships with a view to accelerating the speed at which we renew and replace our public service infrastructure, the construction industry is going to have to gear up to meet that need. It is reasonable for the construction industry to require a clear plan laid down over some time so that it can gear up to meet the need.
Turning away from the area of schools and hospitals, I want to talk about transport, which is the other principal area for using public-private partnerships. This is highly topical subject recently because of the ongoing wrangle about the London Underground. That example is not a helpful one, because the London Underground is a large- scale project, in excess of anything that would concern us. There are, however, some points of principle involved that are relevant to any city looking to improve its public transport.
When building schools and hospitals one simply looks at how to draw down forthcoming Government expenditure and how, through PPP, private finance might be mobilised to accelerate the rate of build. However when looking at transport there is a wider range of options. Public transport generates revenue in the form of fares, and the revenue stream provides an opportunity to raise money in other ways. Mention has been made of the use of bonds, although I am concerned at the undefined and imprecise way this is talked about. It is not likely that the Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly are going to issue a bond. Going by previous experience, that would cause considerable difficulties with the Treasury. It is possible that there may be devices whereby a separate entity could be set up which owned a proportion of the fares of a public transport service and where those fares acted as security to service a bond. With that money it might be possible to expand the service to be provided. That is, however, predicated on the basis that the fare base is big enough. With our relatively small population, I suspect that we would be looking at an injection of public money as well. That is not a good reason for not getting involved in that; there may be a combined strategy there that would be suitable.
There is also the question of congestion charging, that is, charging people to take their cars into Belfast.
It is also possible to raise money through tolls. The key to this is the existence of sufficient demand for the use of the road for which you wish to charge a toll. It is preferable to have an alternative, so that the payment of the toll is an entirely voluntary act. For some reason people think that it is acceptable to pay a fare to travel by rail but that it should cost nothing to drive their car on a road. That is not necessarily realistic for a motorist who wants to travel at the same time as many others. However, if a motorist has the choice between queuing on an existing crowded road or paying a toll to drive down a brand new highway, he will eventually go down the new road when he is in a rush. After that he will never travel on the old road again. That has been the experience in regard to the toll roads in Dublin.
We must be prepared to be imaginative, and there is a likelihood of short-term unpopularity until the benefits flow through. However, political parties must decide whether they are prepared to take on this responsibility in order to achieve a long-term benefit. We must remember that the payment of tolls and congestion charges is a voluntary act. There are other ways of travelling free of charge, but they might mean a longer journey.
I seem to have been talking for some time, Mr Speaker. I do not normally have this much time. I will try to wind up.

Mr Francie Molloy: You must use it all when you get it.

Mr James Leslie: Absolutely. The question of whether Northern Ireland gets a fair deal from the Treasury under the Barnett formula frequently arises in the House. It is not useful to speculate about the creation of a new formula when making plans to address our infrastructure deficit. We must work with the figures that are currently available. If we were able to persuade the Treasury to give us more money, it would be a nice problem to have, and we would have no difficulty in allocating these funds. Realistically, we have to work with what we have now, and with conservative projections of what it will be worth in the future. We must remember that Northern Ireland receives some £10 billion from the Treasury, and our tax base is estimated at around only £5 billion. We therefore have to take the view that we are being treated generously.
We are identifying the benefits of PPPs and the considerable problems involved, which are well highlighted in our report. One of the main benefits of PPPs is that they force Governments to plan and budget for the long term — not just to build things, but to maintain them to the same standard. By engaging in a contract for 30 years, a Government is tying up money for 30 years. By entering into more contracts, the Government ties up more money, which might otherwise have been available in, for example, 10 years’ time. Nonetheless, there are considerable opportunities for accelerating the rate at which we address our infrastructure deficit. Several of these would soon benefit Northern Ireland considerably.

Mr Seamus Close: As the Chairperson of the Committee has stated, this debate comes at an opportune time. This debate, its outworkings, and the decisions that will be taken in response to it, could shape decisions that affect our community for several years to come. They will have an impact on our society for many years.
It is an unpalatable fact that the public infrastructure in Northern Ireland is in a very poor state. That is not an exaggeration — it is an understatement. It is estimated that several billion pounds are urgently required to put right the clear deficit in investment over the past 30 years, and to right the wrongs of neglect and violence.
Pages 47 and 48 of volume one of the report draw attention to the priorities published by the Executive in the Programme for Government in February 2001. The 33 paragraphs on those two pages should not be dismissed as a wish-list, but should be seen as the needs of our society if we are to achieve the goals that we have set ourselves.
I will highlight some of those points, such as the need to provide for an anticipated 250,000 new households over the next 25 years and the need to address hospital waiting lists — 18% of patients in Northern Ireland have been on waiting lists for over 12 months. Community health and social care support also needs to be addressed, because there are 4,000 people waiting for that. Demographic changes clearly show that there will be increasing pressures on available resources.
The shortage of university places must also be addressed. Many young people leave Northern Ireland to further their education, and most of them do not return. The need to address the deficiencies in our roads, public transport, energy, telecommunications, and water and sewerage infrastructures has already been mentioned. By 2005, waste water treatment works must achieve 80% compliance with environmental and heritage standards.
The crux of the issue is that the Executive need to operate collectively to bring about the necessary improvements in the Barnett formula. Barnett does not recognise or adequately address the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. It is therefore incumbent on the Executive to operate collectively — and I stress the word "collectively" — to ensure that the Treasury gives financial expression to our needs.
I live in the real world, and I recognise that waiting in hope for the justification of our needs in equity and fair play to be realised and recognised by the Treasury will take a long time. To do nothing is not an option in this situation. We must tackle our huge problems sooner rather than later, because time, in this respect, costs a lot of money. It is therefore imperative that alternatives be examined. The publication of our report comes at an opportune time.
It would be wrong to see public-private partnerships as a panacea for all our ills. The cheapest money must be public finance. Any alternative must, by definition, be seen to be more expensive. Hire purchase is always more expensive than cash purchase.
It would be equally wrong to erect ideological barriers against public-private partnerships. Partnership undoubtedly has an important role to play, but lessons must be learned from the past. We must learn how to protect employees and avoid spending public money on bad employers. We need to recognise that risk ultimately lies with the public sector. We should not be drawn into heavily front-loaded contracts with no real idea of the full delivery costs over the full term of the contract. In short, we must see that value for money is the key over the full term.
We must be conscious of the effects that long-term contracts will have in future, and we must demonstrate clearly that lessons have been learnt from the past. For example, we are still paying very dearly — very dearly — for long-term contracts in the privatisation of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland.
The report from the Finance and Personnel Committee sets down vitally important recommendations that are aimed at ensuring that we make progress in addressing underinvestment in a constructive, methodical and joined-up manner. Co-ordination must be the name of the game, and it must be done by a team headed by a Minister who will be responsible for driving forward a unified service- wide investment strategy that will have accepted and examined all possible options.
Although our terms of reference were clearly focused on public-private partnerships and PFIs, whoever leads our investment strategy team should examine closely all alternatives and options, including what Mr Leslie called "bonds". Mr Leslie should read a recent paper by Prof Austin Smyth and Jamie Delargy entitled ‘Bonds – a Capital Idea’. It emphasises the strong potential that bonds offer for dealing with our infrastructure deficit, and it draws particular attention to the non-profit owned company that deals with the Welsh water and sewerage system. I also draw attention to the recent ‘Building Better Partnerships’ report by one of the top think tanks. It gives an analytical breakdown of the pros and cons of PPPs and the direction in which we should go in future.
The report that the Finance and Personnel Committee produced after much work and thoughtful consideration should be the cornerstone upon which we build a centre of excellence for future investment and procurement. That goal should not be outside our reach. We have a golden opportunity to strive for excellence, and this report provides the cornerstone.
I join the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee in expressing my gratitude to our staff who dealt admirably with a very complex and serious issue. The hours that they were obliged to work because of tight timescales must be recognised. Their admirable work has produced a report that should be a cornerstone for the future.

Prof Monica McWilliams: This is a very comprehensive report that left me with as many questions as it did answers on the way forward. The Chairperson of the Committee referred to the Department of Education and the Department of Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment, which are probably the only two Departments that can give us any detailed information. They were the only Departments to ask for additional funding in the spring Supplementary Estimates for last year, and as such I found very little detailed information on the report’s main recommendations. The report gave a guarded welcome to a greater introduction of PPPs. However, it seems to me that it does not have the information to make such a recommendation.
Has the Committee considered referring some of these issues to the Civic Forum, particularly where a recommendation is made for a unified service-wide investment strategy? It is a novel idea, and it draws on the support of the voluntary and community sector and the private sector. Given that the Civic Forum involves those sectors as well as the trades unions, it may, for once, be useful for the Assembly or an Assembly Committee to ask the Civic Forum to put those sectors together to test their ideas on the way forward on public-private partnerships.
It seems to me that the issue is going the same way as many previous recommendations from the Executive, and that is to hand most of the work to an interdepartmental group that then relies on civil servants to bring the ideas forward. I suggest that we go to the sectors that work with the problems of finance and securing resources and ask for their views.
There are four areas that the report needs to do more work on. First, there is the question of the openness, transparency and accountability of the public-private partnerships that are in place. Secondly, there is the issue of the impact of public-private partnerships on the community, particularly where the report refers to the need to meet the human rights and equality obligations set by the Executive. Thirdly, there is very little in the report about alternative methods of procurement, despite Mr Leslie’s views today. Seamus Close mentioned bonds, and there are many questions still to be answered and many technical problems with the Treasury’s views on public bonds. Finally, there is the issue of risk transfer.
The major issue is the lack of openness and transparency in public-private partnerships. The report explains how one individual asked for a business case, and even though there were commercial interests at stake, he could not get information about Transport 2000 from one Department. If we cannot get that information, how can we provide empirical data that shows that public-private partnerships work?
The report states that
"Project information does not appear to be kept in a uniform manner. This leads to inconsistent findings, making comparisons difficult, if not indeed impossible. Finally there appears to be an absence of research on the socio-economic impact of the individual projects on relevant communities."
Given that, how can the report reconcile its conclusion that, albeit cautiously, we should pursue public- private partnerships?
All the information seems to lie with the bidder or the contractor, so it is easy for them to demonstrate value for money because that depends on what they include or exclude and how they determine what costs will be counted and over what period. Some projects may be value for money but unaffordable. They can also be poor value for money and unaffordable. The difficulty is that schemes may be pruned to make them affordable, or that extra public resources — as we know has been the case — get thrown at them, hence the land sales, asset transfers, capital grants and capacity and service reductions that are so prominent in hospitals, schools and in the passport agency projects that we know about.
Experience in England indicates that the value of either private finance initiatives or public-private partnerships shows the estimated size of the capital element to be financed by the private sector but excludes the public sector contributions. That comes back to the point I made about the lack of transparency. I know from my own constituency that in general land sales and asset transfers were arranged with extremely advantageous terms for the private sector.
That brings me to the impact of public-private partnerships on local communities. We have section 75 and the Human Rights Act, and this is probably the most audited Assembly in the Western World — if not the entire world. Every policy must be audited and ticked off on how it impacts on certain categories of people and communities. However, we are going forward with a policy without knowing what its impacts will be.
Let me give Members an example of one public-private partnership that did not work and was disadvantageous to a local community.
Wellington College, which was in great need of replacement, went down the PPP road. A consortium of builders was put together under the name of Northwin Developments. The consortium put in a successful application for planning permission. However, a problem arose when the Department of the Environment told it that part of the land had been designated for playing fields. By this stage the consortium was now the owner of the land, and as the owner, it decided that it could do what it liked with the land. The consortium decided to put up more housing than had been scheduled in the original plans. It claimed that the land was left over after it had finished building the school.
The community was not against the new school or the first proposal for the number of houses to be built. However, as the planning process continued the community discovered that their playing fields, which was the only piece of open land they had, were also going to be built on. This was an interesting example, because the Department of the Environment said that the consortium could not build on the land, but the Department of Education said that the consortium owned the land and could therefore do what it wanted with it.
I attended a public inquiry where a debate took place about what should happen and about what powers were available. Ultimately, it was extremely disadvantageous to the community to be told that they really did not have to be consulted about what happened to the playing fields.
I want to see the conditions that would be put on future PPPs. I did not see much about that in the report. I have great concerns too for the future if supermarkets and high-density developments were to be built on the small number of playing fields and green spaces that we have in a city such as Belfast. Undoubtedly, much of this is taking place because of developments between the public and the private sectors.
I also have concerns about management. The report has some worrying conclusions and makes comments about schools being managed by people who have been a part of the contractual arrangements. Presumably this could apply to hospitals as well. Many questions still need to be asked.
I have concerns about the difference between the objectives of the public and private sectors. The private sector has moral obligations to investors that take priority over social obligations to customers. On the other hand, we are told that the public sector is motivated by social responsibility and environmental awareness. Therein lies the crux of the problem: two sets of objectives that fly in the face of each other. Experience to date suggests that the private sector’s objectives will win over those of the public sector.
There is scant mention of other methods of procurement in the report, although it talks about a non-profit making trust for infrastructure investment. However, that is all — it simply refers to it and says that it would require significant further development. The report more or less dismisses the idea out of hand. As well as non-profit making organisations, there are public bonds — and those leave as many questions as they answer. We really do not know what we are talking about here, and the report does not offer us much enlightenment.
What are the alternative funding arrangements or methods of procurement? The terms of reference state that the Committee was looking specifically at public-private partnerships, but that does not forbid the opportunity to go into detail about what exists elsewhere, particularly as the Committee was attempting to examine international as well as national experiences.
We come to risk transfer and the whole-life costs of a project. The contractor is clearly in a very powerful position here. The risks may be minimal if the project works.
If a public-private partnership does not work, the public sector will have to take on the risk and costs of that failure. The Executive must deliberate this question if they are to go down this road and hand the risk over to trusts and boards.
As an aside, if the Executive were to consider the option of bonds, I wonder how much credit a long-term investor would give us for a bond given the current state of the Assembly and the Executive. Failed private projects are very worrying.

Mr James Leslie: Does the Member agree that in circumstances in which the asset has been built, and the private sector provider has gone bust, the public sector is in the best possible position because it has the asset and has not fully paid for it?

Prof Monica McWilliams: That is assuming that, at that stage, the asset has any worth. The providers that go bust are the ones who supply badly constructed buildings in the first place. We have seen examples of that in England — and they have come about as a result of shady deals. The partnerships that we want to invest in are those that do not have a high risk attached to them. The assets that have been handed over to the public sector — and as usual the poor public sector picks up the pieces — are those that have been dodgy from the outset.
Many people wonder whether it was value for money. The assets become affordable only because developers have cut so many costs and corners. Then, in order to manage the assets, the private sector providers must ask for more money from the public sector to keep going. The public sector continues to bail them out until eventually it has to take over.
Finally, trade unions do not oppose these partnerships simply because of private funding. Nowadays, trade unions are trying to find out what is good value for money. However, they have urged a cautious approach, particularly where there are huge implications for workers. Which parts of the Health Service will remain as its profitable side? In contrast, which parts will be thought of as the poor sisters of the Health Service? That issue is a particularly interesting one for those of us who are involved in projects like mental health, rather than the acute side of the Health Service.
Most importantly, the report has not suggested criteria that can determine whether a project is suitable for PPPs. I hoped that this report would give us criteria that we might call "useful pieces of audit", by which we could decide to tick off on a project. Those responsible for the report could not answer that — they said the information was not available to them. Ultimately, I am disappointed. I strongly commend the Committee for its initiative in undertaking the first stage of a much longer-term project for the examination of PPPs.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: First, I would like to point out that the resources available under the existing Barnett formula are insufficient to meet the needs of our society. It would be desirable to have all our public services provided from public resources, but unfortunately that is not possible. Therefore we have to look at innovative means by which we can fund our public services. I am not advocating PPP or PFI for the sake of it. Rather we need to use those approaches because financial realism dictates that in-house financial turnover is inadequate.
It is essential to leave no step untaken in attempting to address the poisonous legacy of the underinvestment that occurred under direct rule. It is a system that the detractors of the Good Friday Agreement wish to return to. We must not only address underinvestment but increase resources so that we can achieve more ambitious targets for society.
For example, we could have three or four capital programmes through PFI or PPP that could be used in the future. We need to ensure that the effects of what we have talked about, with regard to joined-up government, are being delivered. We will need to ensure that we have a skilled workforce ready to deal with the demand.
It is important that PPP or PFI initiatives be publicly accountable, be value for money and, most of all, be transparent. The reality, which has been touched on already by several Members, is that we need to increase the educational provision for our children, create better roads, build a stronger economy and increase and improve the care of our sick, elderly and most vulnerable. These ambitions drive us forward and spur us to action. However, if we are to achieve our goals we must back them up with a clearly thought out financial strategy. The PFI/PPP instrument is one — and only one — way of achieving those goals.
When we utilise the instruments of PFI and PPP, we need to ensure that we evaluate their pertinence and impact. We must realise, as Seamus Close said, that this is not a panacea for all our ills. However, we should not, and cannot, discount it before due consideration. That would be absurd and would be doing a great disservice to our people, especially those most in need. Whatever we do must be consistent with the core commitment to social and democratic objectives — the creation of equality of opportunity, targeting social need and high-quality public services. We need to derive benefits from the use of PPP. Indeed, we should have as a ministerial approach "Ask not what your Department can do for PPP or PFI, rather what can PPP or PFI do for your Department’s needs". There is a need to properly examine this complex area, and I am sure that this report will contribute significantly to the debate. Furthermore, this is why I welcome the high level task force announced by the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
In conclusion, properly used PFI and PPP, which will enable provision of services free at the point of delivery, can have a place in the overall financial strategy of any Administration. However, it should not — and I am sure will not — become an objective. Rather it should always remain a strategic option. At this point, I, like the other members of the Finance and Personnel Committee, wish to add my thanks and appreciation to the staff for their commitment and the tireless amount of work that they put into compiling this report, which I support.

Mr Peter Weir: I welcome this report by the Committee for Finance and Personnel. It is very comprehensive and includes evidence from a wide range of witnesses ranging from harsh critics of the idea of PPP through to people promoting the idea with evangelical zeal.
Anybody who took the time to read the report will have noticed that several things became abundantly clear from the evidence. There is undoubtedly a major infrastructure deficit and a concern over the lack of delivery of public services. Reference was made to issues of devolution and direct rule. Certainly, infrastructure has suffered under direct rule, but it is not a problem relating solely to Northern Ireland. If you had followed all the issues in the general election, you would have seen widespread concern throughout the UK, and, indeed, beyond, at the lack of investment in public services.
No matter how much we readjust Barnett, or look at moving it around, the advantage that can be brought purely by way of traditional public procurement methods is not going to be able to meet the full demands of public expectation and demand for increase in investment into public services and infrastructure. As indicated by the Minister, that route is simply not going to be sufficient. Consequently, we have to look at other means including PPP. I appreciate that the report takes a very cautious view to PPP, which I think is right. We are not in a position to be able to evaluate how PPP has worked at the end of a full life-size implementation of any of the projects, because we are still at the early stages.
The report is even more cautious on bond schemes, which are at a much earlier stage of development in, for example, the Department for Regional Development.
It is right to keep an open mind as to which method we use to find additional investment for public services. It is clear that PPPs and perhaps bond schemes have to be considered, but it is important always to realise that they are only tools to achieve public investment. Be it PPP or anything else, we are looking at a means to an end rather than an end in itself. That is the crucial thing to remember.
Northern Ireland has been slow to go down the road of PPP. Indeed, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, we are well behind. While there is a certain disadvantage in that, we should take advantage of the adage and look elsewhere for examples of the route that we as a Province should take.
It has been said that a wise person learns by his mistakes, but an even wiser person learns by the mistakes of others. If we apply that adage, there are certain things in the report that can point to a direction by which I hope we can avoid some of the mistakes that have been made elsewhere. Particularly in its recommendations, the report concentrates less on a particular model for PPPs or bond schemes that is the panacea to all our problems, but looks at what is best practice and the structures that should apply. Thus, the idea of the need to pool experience and to pool that level of expertise throughout the Civil Service in order to provide the best infrastructure decisions is important.
The desire to co-ordinate very much runs through the recommendations, whether by way of having a Minister designated to look after the issue through the working group, or by way of the central investment body. All those things are focused on the key aims of pooling experience and expertise and of co-ordination. Here I take issue with some of the things that another Member said. Whatever route we take to deal with the infrastructure deficit — the current public procurement, bond schemes or PPPs (and it is likely to be some combination of those) — in years to come we will see a greater degree of private sector involvement. As such, the dichotomy between the traditional means of public procurement and PPP is perhaps not always as great as it is portrayed. If, for example, a school or hospital is being built, you can take the methodology of PPP and use that scheme, but even if you use the traditional procurement method you are contracting out the building of that school or hospital. Some of the risks that relate to the private sector will be there consistently, no matter which route you take.
Several issues arise out of that. There is a need for a sustainable deal flow within any investment strategy. One of the concerns that several Members had at the start of the inquiry was that if we went down the route of PPP, the local private sector would be overwhelmed by the amount of contracts coming online, and that that would create problems.
However, one piece of evidence that came from the local private sector was that its concern at the moment is the reverse — that the deals and contracts that have been made available by the public sector have been so insufficient, and so stuttering in their delivery, that there is a danger of not getting the opportunity to build up the level of expertise, and that the sustainable deal flow is not being created. Therefore we have to, via the methods that have been outlined in the report, produce that sustainable deal flow in order to ensure that local firms in Northern Ireland are best able to deal with the problems they are facing.
We are facing some sort of mix of public procurement and PPP in the future. There are benefits to be gained from the competition between those two sectors that will be beneficial to the public purse. There is also the issue of standardisation of contracts to ensure that there is transparency, but also that we do not have undue cost and undue delay in fulfilling some of these deals.
There is also the issue of value for money. It is important that we do not simply look at the cheapest route to produce a particular infrastructure. Indeed, as has been said, it would be a mistake to do so. Some of the qualitative issues must also be considered in relation to the benefits of PPP, as outlined by James Leslie and others, such as the freeing-up of resources. If the contractors not only design and build a building but also operate the building, they have a greater incentive not to cut corners and to provide something that is sustainable for the long term.
PPP and public procurement as a whole must be used as a means to an end and as a device to accelerate public investment. However, care must be taken that in dealing with long-term contracts we do not tie up so much public investment as to reduce flexibility for the future. The opportunity exists for the public sector to ensure that resources can be reallocated in the future.
The report’s recommendations map out a sensible and cautious way forward to deal with the public sector investment deficit. Unless we start tackling the infrastructure issue now, and through the method put forward by the Committee, we will only be storing up trouble for the future. This is a cautious, but realistic, way forward, and I commend the report to the House.

Mr Mark Durkan: Like other Members, I welcome the report of the Committee for Finance and Personnel on public-private partnerships. It is, as some Members have said, very timely. It deserves serious consideration by all of us with an interest in the future development of the infrastructure of our public services. It is a weighty and wide-ranging report. If I wanted to be cheeky, I might say that we are being asked to debate a report of great weight and size, and we have only had a few days to consider it. I could turn the tables on the usual complaint that is made against myself and the Executive by the Committee.
The amount of work that has gone into the report — and importantly the amount of work that should flow from the report and follow up on some of its ground-turning work — means that it does not come to the end of its life cycle just by virtue of this debate. This is a take-note debate; we are not coming to full determinations or conclusions about any of the report’s recommendations. The report itself rightly points out that further work must be done on a number of issues and that there are other issues that we must explore, but it gives good pointers as to the premises on which that future work should be based.
As the Executive have emphasised in the Programme for Government, the resources available from the taxpayer are finite and are stretched by the need to provide for services at greater levels of need than the UK average. The Executive must address a legacy of historical underfunding, which many Members have referred to, in the infrastructure of our public services. Currently many parts of the public services, especially health, education and transport, require levels of capital investment far in excess of the resources that are available if we are to simply fund them in the traditional manner. It is essential that the Executive and Departments explore new ways of financing and providing services such as public-private partnerships and the range of forms that they might take, providing they are affordable, deliver value for money and provide effective solutions to meet the needs of our public services.
We need to examine all options carefully and objectively, and to develop a clear policy in this area. All those points are underlined at various stages in the report, and in various ways by many of those who gave evidence to the Committee.
Under direct rule, our vital services were underfunded for years. Those issues are not confined solely to direct rule. I do not pretend that they are simply a function of direct rule, but the historic reality is that we have a legacy of underinvestment. The Executive are determined to break those patterns, but, as we have already stressed, the resources available for funding our public services are limited and hard-pressed, and are already stretched by the need for us to provide services at greater levels of need than elsewhere. Therefore we have to research and examine carefully how we fund and deliver public services, not least — but not only — in areas such as health and education.
No one should be under the illusion that there is a miracle cure. Solutions that focus on alternative sources of borrowing are not sufficient because of the way the spending rules operate, and I will come to that point again when dealing with the questions Members raised about bonds.
I recognise that recently there has been considerable media coverage of this subject, including concerns expressed in certain quarters — especially by trade unions — about the use of public-private partnerships in delivering public services. In addition, the recently published report by the Institute of Public Policy Research in London, which some Members referred to, provides further evidence about the use of PPPs that also deserves careful consideration. The high-level working group being set up to review the use of PPPs in public services by March 2002, in accordance with commitments set out in the Programme for Government, will address these issues. I will soon be giving the Committee for Finance and Personnel a copy of the terms of reference that I have agreed with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Copies will be placed in the Assembly Library in due course.
The working group will take into account evidence from many quarters on the benefits and constraints of using PPP. It will also look at the report published last week by the Institute of Public Policy Research, and, in particular, the report published today by the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the many helpful pointers that it gives.
I do not propose to deal with the detailed recommendations of the report now, with one exception that I will come to soon. The recommendations deserve serious consideration and not some knee-jerk or summary response. The quality and detail of the work that was put into the report, both by those who made submissions and by those who worked to put the report together, deserves equally thorough consideration.
I want to express a debt of thanks that the Assembly owes to the Committee for being able to gather such a wide cross-section of views and input from all sectors, not just from here but from further afield, in what is a very important and complex subject.
That wide spectrum of views is, in itself, important to acknowledge. The evidence gathered as a result will be all the more valuable as a source of information upon which the PPP working group established on behalf of the Executive will be able to build in its deliberations.
I said that I did not want to dwell unduly on any particular recommendations in the report. However, I think it would be helpful to pick up on some of the points that have been made in the debate. I do not necessarily want to reply to them but to join in the exchange of observations.
Some Members raised concerns or reflected concerns expressed by others. It is clear that public service employees have a number of misgivings about developments in this field. I understand and appreciate those, and many of them arise from particular experiences of previous private finance initiative projects that have taken place elsewhere. We are all learning a number of lessons. The report properly reflects some of those fears. It highlights some of the downsides but also emphasises that action can be taken to minimise those and to maximise advantages.
Reference was made to proposals from the Labour Government with regard to the NHS. I should point out that they are confined to pilot projects that are to be reported on by the end of the year. I am not aware of any commitment to extend secondment of public sector employees to private operators.
James Leslie made the point that has been made elsewhere in the media recently about a comparison with hire purchase. I am not disputing that comparison on some levels. However, people need to recognise — as Mr Leslie did — that there can be advantages in terms of better value for money in the service delivered and scope for third party revenue.
We also need to remember that it is not always necessarily best for the public to own and manage as many buildings as it might need to use for any given purpose. There can be advantages in sweating assets to get the best overall benefit. There are issues in the context of resource accounting and budgeting that we cannot ignore.
Some Members referred to bonds. As Peter Weir pointed out, the report from the Committee is very measured and reasonable in its approach to this issue. The idea of bonds has been explored before now; it is not entirely new. We all need to understand, as some Members have reflected, that bonds are just a form of borrowing. They do not necessarily open new doors for us. I remind Members that we are subject to a departmental expenditure limit.
As my officials keep telling me, it does exactly what it says on the tin. Borrowing does not allow us to spend more. Bonds might help us as part of a wider PPP approach if the private partner can avail of advantageous borrowing terms, but the concept of acquiring capital in this way, as it is being sold at the minute, is not as effective a solution as one might think.
In regard to the Welsh Water model, we need to understand that a high credit rating is needed to acquire servicing bonds on the international bond market. One Member asked what credit rating we, as a regional Administration, would be given in current circumstances. We should recognise that the Welsh Water credit rating was achieved only after privatisation and 10 years of capital investment of £2·5 billion. We need to remember that all that glisters is not necessarily gold.
Monica McWilliams discussed the sale of surplus assets as part of PPP deals and the idea that such action is like selling the family’s silver to meet today’s needs. Such assets, if they are part of PPP deals, must be clearly determined as being surplus to requirements for the foreseeable future. That can release value that can enhance the affordability of deals. If surplus assets are not disposed of they become a drain on public expenditure resources, particularly in the context of resource accounting and budgeting.
Mr Leslie said that PPP requires long-term budgeting. Under resource accounting and budgeting, the procurement of an asset by conventional means leads to a call on the resource budget for as long as the asset is held. Resource accounting and budgeting means that we will bear the cost of holding assets and that will be a real cost. There will always be the choice of selling the asset. We must consider the idea of holding and managing only those assets that we need to provide priority services.
When introducing the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, I said that in the context of resource accounting and budgeting the Assembly will be controlling not only the flow and allocation of expenditure but the stock of assets that it possesses. We therefore need to take this into consideration. Potential conflicts of objective between the private and public sectors were mentioned. We need to ensure that we negotiate terms and arrangements that give us contracts that tie private sector aims and methods to the achievement of public sector requirements at the best available cost to ourselves.
The report rightly registers the idea of a not-for-profit trust, but it does not go into handstands on the subject. We looked at the matter at official level and came to the same conclusion. We are not conclusively negative, but we remain unclear about how much of a contribution that approach might make. We have not ruled out further exploration but have indicated that it is not as easy an answer as has been suggested. I accept that the report does not suggest any easy answer in that regard, or in any other respect. The report calls for much hard work to be carried out in regard to many difficult issues in order to deliver much needed services and to reduce the many difficulties that exist across a range of services. An operator will only get paid if services are provided to the standards contracted for. At worst in a PFI deal, the asset will revert to public service ownership.
At one level, the Department needs to ensure that there is greater understanding of the various interests in the impetus that there would be in any deal, particularly if we are trying to bring forward new models. I am particularly interested in the Committee’s emphasis on the need to ensure service-wide developments. That is not on a basis of one size fitting all. However, there needs to be enough information and openness about developments to make sure that best practice can be broadcast, replicated and picked up by others.
Equally, we have to bear in mind that there will be a need for a degree of commercial confidentiality. Too much disclosure might do more to prevent us getting better deals in the future than to ensure that we get better deals.
Monica McWilliams suggested referring the report to the Civic Forum. I have no argument with the Forum being recruited to look at any issue. However, in making her observation, Prof McWilliams said that the interdepartmental working group looking at the issues would consist only of civil servants. I must point out that the working group will comprise representatives from all sectors — the private, public and voluntary sectors and the trade unions. It will work on an open and organic basis to turn over a number of the issues that have been well opened by the report and that we need to consider further, as the report rightly requests us to do.
The point about the working group’s being able to involve a range of social interests brings me back to one of the key recommendations in the report. It advocates that the support of key players, such as the private and voluntary sectors and local communities, be sought and that a social partnership approach should be used to achieve that support. That is a significant and healthy proposal. It is entirely in tune with the Executive’s desire to secure widespread support for how public services are to be developed and delivered in the future. It is consistent with the Department’s plans for the composition of the high-level working group.
The Department of Finance and Personnel is committed to exploring funding opportunities in these islands and beyond. That will also be reflected in the composition of the working group.
The notion of social partnerships helping to bring new light and dimensions to the concept of PPPs is timely. It rhymes well with the emphasis that the Executive have been placing on the development of the partnership model in the context of the next round of EU programmes.
I recall an earlier exchange in the House concerning EU programmes when I said that the local strategy partnerships might have an influence not only on what local government or statutory agencies were doing but also on some private finance decisions. Some Members asked what I meant, and they wondered how those socially based local partnerships could have that sort of influence. Therefore the thinking of the Committee rhymes very well with the thinking of the Executive in that regard.
It is noteworthy that the report reflects a cross-party consensus in the Committee for Finance and Personnel on the use of PPPs.
In that respect it reinforces the view that it is only through various forms of partnership, including PPP, that we can realistically hope to see the type of modern, well- resourced and well-managed public services that our people deserve in the twenty-first century.
I congratulate the Committee and its staff for producing a report on this complex issue in such a relatively short time. I assure Members that the findings will be taken into account fully in the months ahead as the PPP working group undertakes its task. I can say with every confidence that the Committee for Finance and Personnel will make sure that its findings and recommendations for further work will be followed up by the Department and the Executive.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister and all of the Members who participated in the debate. I welcome the support or otherwise for the report and the Minister’s agreement on the need to tackle the deficit urgently and constructively.
Mr Leslie mentioned the ownership of buildings. It is a very important issue. In relocating Government offices, the fact that the Government own buildings means that it can be difficult to locate elsewhere. We found that there were difficulties when there were old buildings that were no longer serviceable. We felt that a complete break had to be made sometimes.
I support Seamus Close’s statement about the Barnett formula. Further work needs to be done in order to address the matter. The Minister cautioned that in raising the issue of the Barnett formula we also have to come up with alternatives to it. Our report is partly concerned with that matter.
Monica McWilliams said that the report does not give clear indications. We recognise that quite a lot of work has to be done. The aim of the report is to start debate in the Assembly and in the Executive about the direction we should take. We hope that we have addressed some of the issues and concerns that she raised.
We would welcome a wider debate within the Civic Forum. There was nothing to stop members of the Civic Forum answering our advertisement for people to come forward and give evidence. It is important that we mention that.
The ongoing review of PPP by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will consider all of this, and that is another aspect. We agree that there is a need for transparency, and that is one of the issues that came up in the report. However, there is also the issue of confidentiality. Sometimes it is not in the best interests of the Assembly, or for the public purse, to divulge information that will be of benefit to those who are in competition. We must achieve a balance. The Committee recognised that all of the information should be available, and that is one of the issues that we have highlighted.
It is important to state that the Committee is not recommending that we go down the road of PPP; we are saying the opposite. We are saying that PPP may be used in a number of different occasions, and that in certain circumstances it could be beneficial. However, it is not to be used in all circumstances. It is not the be-all and end-all.
The report is trying to put together a strategy to help deal with PPP and other finance issues and to put together a structure that will ensure that investment is achieved in whatever contracts are entered into. We have looked at that situation thoroughly.
The issue of land sales arose during our investigations. The Committee advocates that the social partnership approach in dealing with investment needs to be in consultation with the local community and with its involvement. It does not mean simply paying lip service to local consultations or the community view but taking their ideas on board.
One of the recommendations that arose from our consultations was that land was not a good mechanism for putting together a partnership. It is best to take the land issue out of the matter completely, and it would then be clear what you were dealing with in pure cash terms.
Ms McWilliams stated that we had dismissed the not-for-profit trusts, but to the contrary we marked that up as an alternative, and we had long discussions on the matter. We did not want to go down the road of having PPPs as the only means of raising finance; we wanted to deal with the alternatives. This inquiry was dealing with PPPs, and to institute another investigation into bonds and other methods would have taken the Committee into a diversion. The report endeavoured to stay within the terms of reference.
We are recommending to the Executive that we look at alternatives. The Committee recognised the need to determine value for money by establishing the risks to be transferred and to put that structure together.
One thing that came across very clearly in a number of projects that we considered here, in Dublin and in England was the fact that contractors operated a better build policy, because they knew that they would be responsible for maintaining the building for 25 or 30 years. It was pointed out that the contractors actually changed the type and strength of materials that go into the building of a school or other structure when they realised that part of the contract involved the maintenance of that building. That is one of the advantages that we pointed up.
School buildings are underutilised. With this particular type and design of project there is the opportunity for communities to use the buildings in a more inclusive way.
Ms Lewsley mentioned that PPP was a tool in the mechanism of dealing with the deficits. I welcomed the Member’s comment that there must be a continuous assessment and revaluation. That is part of the whole process, not just at the first stage and then it is over and done with. The Dublin people went for continuous revaluation and looking at situations with a view to making money.
Mr Weir mentioned the Committee’s caution in relation to PPP. I agree with him that it is too early to evaluate fully the impact of these projects. None of them has been running for long enough to carry out a proper assessment. I do not know where some Members got the idea that buildings built under the PPP initiative were falling down around us; we found that these projects had not been in existence long enough to fall down.
The deal flow idea came across from the business community, and that is to do with investment by the private sector. We need to send a clear direction that we are dealing with investment; it is not just PPP. There is an opportunity for investment there.
The quality of building has to be taken into account, and the report points out the danger of PPP projects falling apart, because they do not have a proper deal flow.
The Minister of Finance and Personnel dealt with the issue of affordability and value for money and stated that there are no miracle cures. The fact that there are no miracle cures is one of the issues that we strongly pointed up in the report. There are some projects that will be of benefit if we go down this road, but PPP is not the panacea for everything. We have to look at the options. Some avenues we may not go down at all, and public finance may be the preferred option if that were available.
On the issue of privatisation, there is a danger of the mistakes and baggage of the past being repeated in respect of the privatisation of the present Health Service and other services. This was not done well in the past, and the involvement of trade unions brought the issue into question. We should not confuse privatisation with PPP or finance-raising mechanisms.
That may be the case for some. However, as James Leslie pointed out, most of the people that we talked to said that those who transferred to the private sector would not return to the public sector.
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to the social partnership. This issue was discussed in our Dublin meetings. There was involvement from all the different partners — the trade unions, the employers and various other structures — in putting together this type of project. Putting that social partnership together was the means of ensuring that there was continuity, that all the issues were addressed and that there was a mechanism for comeback.
We found the same thing when we talked to people who were managing schools. The maintenance of the building was taken out of their hands, and they were free to run educational establishments and not simply act as caretakers. They had an opportunity to put someone in charge of a building’s maintenance, and the contractor had the overall responsibility.
This has been a useful debate. It is to be hoped that the report will be of benefit to all in the future and that along with this debate it sets the scene for further work. The Minister is correct in saying that we are simply marking out work for the future. It is the role of the Executive and the Committees to scrutinise and to ensure that the infrastructure and investment is tackled in this way.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel will return to this subject in the autumn when the Finance Minister will report to the Committee on his consideration of the report and its recommendations. I trust that there will be an opportunity for the Assembly to hear about agreement and real progress for investment in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly takes note of the report prepared by the Committee for Finance and Personnel following its Inquiry into the use of Public-Private Partnerships.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Speaker]

Tourism in the North Antrim Area

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: As Members know, Adjournment debates afford them the opportunity to raise issues concerning their constituencies. I have chosen to raise the issue of tourism in the North Antrim area. I welcome the opportunity to do this in the last Adjournment debate of this session, and possibly of this Assembly, given what happened at the beginning of the week.
Yesterday the House debated the Department for Regional Development’s strategy, which mentions a number of key strategic issues concerning tourism in Northern Ireland. These have some relevance when applied to our constituencies. Today we debated and progressed the Industrial Development Bill, which is also relevant when we consider its proposals on the functions of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Now we can discuss tourism specifically in the context of a constituency. All three issues are therefore linked. In Northern Ireland nothing happens in a vacuum, so they are linked by the long-term strategy for Northern Ireland and the organisation for delivering that strategy for tourism in North Antrim.
Tourism relies on a strategy, and if it is to be successful in constituencies and not just in Northern Ireland as a whole, it is essential to have a strategy for each area. I hope that such a strategy exists. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to a number of points that I intend to raise during this debate.
I welcome the Industrial Development Bill’s proposals regarding the functions of the Tourist Board. These will be helpful, especially in focusing on specific constituency issues. I will give that a fair wind.
As I said, in Northern Ireland nothing happens in a vacuum. Foot-and-mouth disease was not specifically related to farming in North Antrim. It was related to the entire business of Northern Ireland — Northern Ireland plc.
Foot-and-mouth disease had a devastating effect on tourism and on farming in my constituency; at the peak of the disease tourist numbers fell. Bed and breakfasts, hoteliers and restaurateurs all suffered financially. I hope that the Minister can introduce recovery plans for his areas of responsibility.
In a neighbouring constituency to mine the North West 200 was cancelled. That was a devastating blow to my constituency because it robbed the area of holidaymakers, day trippers and visitors to the races and the practice sessions. It had an effect on the number of people who stayed and spent money. That effect must be addressed through a recovery plan.
The responsibility falls to several Ministers, not just to Sir Reg Empey, and I hope that there is some joined-up government action such as rate rebates for bed and breakfasts, hoteliers and restaurateurs. Special emergency grants would help them bridge the gap between this year’s season and next year’s. I hope that those businesses are given assistance to upgrade their facilities so that they become much more attractive holiday destinations.
I hope too that there will be consequential compensation for the tourist industry, as that would be very helpful to my constituency. However, I appreciate that not all those things are in the remit of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I urge him to make that case to the Prime Minister and to other Colleagues.
The Department for Regional Development’s strategy made some specific points about tourism generally in Northern Ireland and my constituency in particular. It sets the scene for the future and for a constituency-specific strategy. If we are to strengthen Northern Ireland we must enhance its attractiveness to international and local tourists.
I have full confidence in the owners of bed and breakfasts, hotels and restaurants throughout Northern Ireland. However, they need encouragement, encouragement that should not be misinterpreted as interference. Those businesses should be encouraged to have a free hand to develop tourism, not to hinder it.
I hope that Northern Ireland can attract tourists and offer them something when they get here. Getting tourists hooked on Northern Ireland is one thing; keeping them in the Province, encouraging them to return to North Antrim to see the Glens, Slemish or the Giant’s Causeway is a different thing altogether.
If we are successful as a magnet for worldwide tourism we must recognise the implications it will have for Northern Ireland’s development. We shall have to build partnerships between the public and private sectors, and that flows directly from the last debate. It is essential that those partnerships be established.
We require joined-up government. Any tourism strategy must have a location infrastructure to allow tourists easy access to the area. In my constituency it is very difficult to get planning permission for bed and breakfasts and motels. The Department for Regional Development’s strategy, which the House debated yesterday, recommends that motels and bed and breakfasts be at the edge of towns or at major tourist crossroads, preferably on regional transport networks.
I recently had great trouble trying to convince the planners in my constituency of the need for a bed and breakfast motel/coffee-house facility along the A26 outside Ballymoney. Such a facility is missing. People who would normally just pass through the area could stay overnight. That could be critical for local business.
Northern Ireland also has the potential, as has my constituency, to offer itself as a major area for sports tourism. I know that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has some interest in that, given his time on the Sports Council. I hope that the opportunity is given to develop a world-class region, whether it be for golfing facilities or to host golfing events. Developers should be given the opportunity to build world-class golf courses, unhindered by unnecessary and restrictive planning considerations. I hope the planners will permit the development of these facilities in picturesque areas.
This should not be limited to golf courses. Members will know that I have a particular interest in motor sport, and I hope that the Minister is prepared to press the case for a specially designed motor sport facility. I would prefer it to be in my constituency, but if that is not possible I do not really mind. I hope that he is pressing his party and ministerial Colleague to make an announcement soon on the issue of a dedicated, state-of-the-art, modern motor sport centre. Northern Ireland requires that vision if it is to capitalise on the tourism opportunities available, and from those will flow economic and social opportunities.
There is a need for a destination resort concept. In many constituencies people whose normal reaction would be "Not in my back yard" would cry out "Please put it in my back yard". I hope that the new tourism board will be able to come up with that destination resort concept. I make a bid now that it should go to North Antrim, and I hope it gets there very soon. I heard it said on a radio programme not so long ago that we do not want a "Disney-type experience". Northern Ireland needs such an experience — apart from this place — and certainly requires something that will attract tourists, provide a focus for them and to which they will return year in, year out. I hope that efforts are being made to draw up such a strategy.
Recently I met with people from the Mid-Glens Foot- and-mouth Disease Regeneration Group, who reiterated the view of a strategy for North Antrim. They said that it is necessary to emphasise that the Glens are back in business, whether farming, tourism or any other. The Minister has a responsibility to really beat that drum, and the sooner people hear that the sooner we can recover some of what was lost in the early part of the tourist season.
How do we assess the current tourism policy in North Antrim? I suppose a school report might read "misdirected at times", "tries very hard but can get distracted" and "overall, could do a lot better". That would not be the most satisfactory result, but I am not here to knock either the tourist industry or the tourism board. They have a very difficult job to do, but even if we appreciate the difficulties they face we must make sure that they try a lot harder and are given every encouragement.
In North Antrim we offer magnificent tourism opportunities. Slemish, the Glens and the Giant’s Causeway provide some of the most spectacular countryside for the visitor. The visitor, however, requires places to stay and things to do. Many of Northern Ireland’s key destinations do not compare favourably with such equivalents as the Lake District or the Cotswolds with regard to overall visitor experience. Increasing the visitor experience is a key issue, and I hope that the Minister can indicate how he intends to do that in my constituency.
The Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) figures for self-catering facilities demonstrate the problems that exist. In Northern Ireland in 1995, 8,795 weeks were sold; that accounts for about 54% of the available space. In 1999 that had fallen to 41%, and there has been no real growth in the number of weeks sold since.
In the north-east the NITB figures show that in 1995 occupancy was at 57%. However, in 1999 — the last year for which figures are available — 3,550 weeks were sold, accounting for about 39% of total occupancy.
Some of that drop can be accredited to seasonal issues such as the Drumcree factor. However, not all of it can, and we must face up to that. The fact is that, if it is to increase, the tourist experience must be developed with a strategy. I hope that the Minister can outline what that strategy will be for my constituency in particular.
The NITB has figures that show the level of tourism- related employment. The Minister knows that Moyle is an employment black spot. The jobs issue there is critical. Of all of the areas in my constituency, Moyle is crucially in need of jobs. One or two jobs could make a difference because it is so small. However, the NITB figures claim that, in 1995, 3,575 people were employed in the north Antrim area. By 1999 there seemed to have been impressive growth with 5,054 people employed in the hotel and tourist sector. That growth looks good on paper, but what is it based on? It is not based on actual jobs, but on what the small print in the NITB report refers to as
"full-time equivalent jobs supported by tourism spend and estimated as a proportion of total spend."
That shows that they are not real jobs — the figures were massaged. I hope that the Minister can provide Members with the real figures, and I suggest that the number is considerably lower than the 5,054 that were indicated. The new Invest Northern Ireland (INI) board has taken on some of the powers of the NITB, and I hope that it can produce more accurate figures and that the Minister can give us that assurance.
An important strategic review of the Giant’s Causeway called ‘Managing Our Future’ was published in 1997. It was drawn up by several Government agencies including the NITB, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Economic Development, the National Trust and Moyle District Council. People ask whether there is a strategy for the area. According to that document there is. However, is that plan in operation today? What progress has been made on the implementation of the issues that that strategy identified?
Everything that I hear from some people who are involved in the NITB suggests that we do not want premature growth or to go off at a particular tangent and that we should slow down tourism development. That is the wrong approach. Northern Ireland, and my constituency, needs tourism development, and it should not be slowed down because there is no strategy. The reality is that there is a strategy. Can the Department report back on how it is being implemented? I accept that development must be part of a strategy, but that plan must come into operation sooner rather than later.
I hope that the Minister agrees that too much dilly- dallying has gone on. It is not enough to dilly-dally on these issues. Hard sweat must be spilt to deliver a strategy. I hope that the Minister agrees that a strategy must revolve around more than a cup of tea and a bun. It was put to me recently that a cup of tea and bun would send a tourist on his or her way. I hope that the tourist stays for much more than that.
I hope that tourists stay in North Antrim and enjoy the hospitality that is on offer. The strategy should be considerably more than mere hit-or-miss visits by tourists. Visitors deserve an unforgettable tourism experience. If we do not provide that, we will be destined to repeat what a diarist and writer wrote about Northern Ireland tourism one hundred years ago, namely — and it was said of the Giant’s Causeway — that it was
" worth seeing, but not worth going to see".
I hope that we, and the people of our country and my constituency will be able to say that the Giant’s Causeway is not only worth seeing but that it is worth going to see and worth going to see again and again because of the visitor experience. That has to be the mission statement, and I hope that the Minister can comment favourably on that.
I have a Northern Ireland Tourist Board visitor satisfaction survey from its final report in 2000. The Tourist Board has rightly identified many of the problem areas such as poor standards of service and overpriced food products. The Tourist Board also identified other issues, such as litter, that are not directly associated with it but which affect tourism and which must be addressed. Despite identifying those problems, the survey produces some interesting results. Some 69% of respondents said that they would return to Northern Ireland for a holiday. That is very encouraging, but we must address the concerns. In a similar survey, the Republic of Ireland and Scotland recorded higher levels of customer satisfaction. We must work on increasing customer satisfaction in my constituency and across Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s report identified the fact that the product is not perceived to be cost- competitive. Food in some areas can be expensive and disappointing. I must say, however, that if the Minister wants a list of good restaurants in North Antrim, I will be happy to provide him with one, whatever his tastes may be. We must improve the service and the experience that we provide for tourists and which they expect. Budget accommodation needs to be improved, and street cleanliness in many areas falls below visitor expectations. We need more tourist-centred destinations.
What have the Government done since the report was published to address the important issues that the Tourist Board identified? The report has addressed the problems; the Tourist Board knows what the problems are. However, what action plan has been put in place, and how has the plan progressed? There was a proposal in the report for an action plan.
The Giant’s Causeway is the jewel in the crown, not just of North Antrim, but of Northern Ireland, or, indeed, these islands, with regard to tourism. It offers an exceptional opportunity for attracting tourists, and last year it had about 475,000 visitors. After the fire at the Causeway visitor centre, the Minister made a very impressive announcement, saying that the private sector should get involved, and that a new, bigger and better visitor centre should be built. I supported that announcement wholeheartedly. Moyle District Council took an initiative and produced a development brief. According to that brief, the location is now on the market for development as a visitor centre. As a result of that initiative, Northern Ireland stands on the threshold of a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity to get the private sector to build, manage and run a state-of-the-art tourism centre. However, the private sector will be guided by the wishes of the local council. That is important, to ensure that the visitor experience does not simply satisfy the private sector but also that the project is guided by the public sector. I welcome that initiative.
If and when the site is sold, it will probably fetch in excess of £5 million. It is not just a matter of selling the site to the highest bidder; the best project must go on that site, to enhance not only North Antrim but also Northern Ireland plc. Local ratepayers would benefit from such a sale, and the Northern Ireland economy would see an advantage in it.
To create such jobs in this unemployment black spot would be remarkable. It would not only create seasonal employment, but long-term, year-round employment for many.
Now is the time to move full steam ahead on this project. We cannot waste another season waiting for it to happen; nor can we slow down, stand back and say that it is premature. We have to get on with the job.
In 1999, the last year for which I have figures, 433,745 people visited the Giant’s Causeway. What an opportunity this — together with other proposals — provides for the development of tourism in Northern Ireland. With the right tourism experience in the area, we can draw those people back and, furthermore, it is not unrealistic to suggest that we can double that figure.
There is, however, no drive from the public sector or the Northern Ireland Tourist Board on those issues. I met with them recently, and they took the view that that development, and other associated developments, could be premature. That viewpoint is unfortunate, as we are already behind in development. Anyone putting money up — whether a private developer or a person in the public sector — would agree that development should be sustainable in the long term.
I hope that the Minister can assure the House that we cannot afford to wait any longer on the development of this project and that we must progress expeditiously. Northern Ireland must capitalise on its tourism potential.
It causes me some concern that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board has a vested interest in the Giant’s Causeway. It has quite rightly supported the reinstatement and development of a train line from the Causeway to Bushmills. Many looked forward with excitement to the development of that train service, not only from the point of view of tourists, but also as it would offer locals employment. That project has not developed in the way that it should have. Years after the project was first announced, it has still to leave the railway shed. Where is the sustainability of that plan?
I recently looked at the Howarth report, which examines this issue. It set out the terms and aims of the project — to relocate the Shane’s Castle railway to the area and also to link two of Northern Ireland’s most famous visitor attractions, the Giant’s Causeway and the Bushmills distillery. In fact, the project does neither. It links a location close to the Giant’s Causeway to one on the outskirts of Bushmills. It would be necessary for a person to walk — or stagger, depending on where they have come from — back to the train, if the service were actually up and running.
Sadly, this development proposal has not got off the ground. I hope that we can receive the assurance that it will get off the ground. However, the reality is that the investment required for that project was excessive.
When it was first floated in 1994, the proposed development costs were £608,000. Initially, with investments and the public sector behind it, the proposed costs were approximately £1·552 million. Yet, if the project gets up and running, it will create only three jobs. That is £500,000 per job. People will raise their eyebrows at that.
There has been an awful lot of Government investment in this project — £200,000 was given from the International Fund for Ireland; £480,000 from the Tourist Board; £150,000 from the peace and reconciliation fund; and about £150,000 from loans and overdrafts. Despite this, the project is still short almost £400,000.
It is hardly surprising that, when asked to provide the funding deficit needed for the project, the local council raised an eyebrow and said that it was "a bit rich" for it to have to meet such a shortfall. This project risks collapse, and we could have another Navan Fort on our hands. I hope that that does not happen.
Today I received from the Registry of Companies in Northern Ireland the certificate of registration for the mortgage relating to the Giant’s Causeway/Bushmills railway. The certificate indicates that if the mortgage is not paid when it becomes due, which is very soon, the Ulster Bank can seize the assets. That would be very good for the bank, but not for those involved, those who invested £480,000 of Tourist Board money, £200,000 of International Fund for Ireland money or £150,000 of peace and reconciliation fund money. This illustrates that the proposal was not well thought out. I hope that the Minister can indicate that he will take a good look at the proposal, implement it, and ensure that the train station is built, because it is essential for the locality.
Perhaps the Department needs to broaden its horizons by considering a service from Bushmills to Dunluce Castle or Portrush. There should not be merely a 10-minute ride from the Giant’s Causeway to the outskirts of Bushmills; there should be something more striking to tourists. Tourists will not come simply to see the railway station in its present state. However, when some of the 400,000 or more visitors come to the Causeway, they would use such a facility if it were to give them an experience that they could not forget.
I raise these issues because I care about the area, and I want tourism in the area to thrive.

Mr Speaker: Order. I know that the Member is not a particular fan of power sharing, but he has used up half of the time available. Therefore I ask him to bring his remarks to a close. The rest of the time needs to be shared between the Minister, who has to respond, and another Member who is keen to speak.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I was concluding my speech, Mr Speaker, but you wrecked my finale — I will have to start again. I appreciate that another Member and the Minister wish to speak.
I want the clear potential for tourism in the area to be fully achieved and the locality to develop as a result. The area’s industry needs to be diversified, and tourism offers us so many more job opportunities and so much more potential than has been offered by other flagging industries that are associated with the locality. I commend this issue to the House.

Mr James Leslie: I am grateful to Mr Paisley Jnr for bringing this matter to the House so that we have an opportunity to investigate these issues. I am also thankful to the Minister for coming along to give us the benefit of his responses.
The potential of North Antrim to attract more visitors is undisputed. Giant’s Causeway, the Bushmills distillery, the beaches of the north coast, the Glens of Antrim and the good selection of golf courses provide plenty of attractions for a range of visitors. I share Mr Paisley Jnr’s frustration that many visitors seem to stay with us for just a short time, often only a day. I trust that the Minister will have some ideas on how to extend visitors’ time spent in the area.
I have concerns, however, about the haphazard way in which we seem to be protecting and enhancing these natural assets. The planning policy applied along the north coast barely merits the term "policy" — it seems to consist of a series of ad hoc decisions. This serial "ad hocery" is leading to a degradation of that natural beauty. It is vital that we pull together a much more carefully thought out, long-term strategic approach that will protect the natural beauty of the coastline.
It is perfectly possible to do that while addressing issues such as the need for more accommodation. I place that comment in the context of the need for rural diversification, particularly the need for farmers to find activities other than working the land, which I think will become a more marginal activity, especially in north Antrim, where the climate presents problems not necessarily experienced elsewhere.
We need not have any fears for our dairy industry on good land, but there are difficulties with some of the more marginal land. I have bombarded the Minister with letters on that subject and related subjects, and the Minister of the Environment has also heard from me quite frequently on these matters. All of my letters say the same thing essentially: there is a need for a holistic approach.
As regards the future of farming, we have to ask ourselves what assets farmers have and how best they can exploit them. They often have buildings in addition to land. In the Lake District — and quite widely in rural England where planning policies are very tight, particularly with regard to new building in open country — there is a great premium attached to the conversion of existing farm buildings. Stone buildings can easily be converted and extended in the same style as existing buildings in order to provide very attractive rural accommodation. However, this is more expensive than the cost of straightforward new build, and we have to acknowledge that in any policy we develop. We have to enable such activity to command a premium that repays the extra costs involved. It is possible to create and preserve such a premium provided there are restrictive policies in other respects, and we should go down that route.
I am always concerned when I see farmers selling a plot to raise some cash, which they use invariably to address their own short-term deficits. In effect, they have simply turned capital into income, and I would very much prefer if they were encouraged and incentivised to look at providing themselves with an alternative income stream, perhaps through the provision of various types of holiday accommodation. There are a number of ways in which Government, working on a cross-departmental basis with a holistic approach, could encourage that.
I also hope that when the Minister and his Colleagues are looking at the overall strategic development of this area they will bend their minds to how they will handle the traffic flow if the Minister of Enterprise is successful in increasing the numbers of tourists. I am sure that Mr Paisley would agree with me that significant potential exists. The numbers of people visiting the Causeway Coast each year could be increased significantly, and we could encourage more of them to spend more time along the coastline and to visit the other features.
However, we are dealing with a narrow road, which runs along the coast, and there can be a particularly severe bottleneck at Bushmills. We should be thinking about how we might better manage that stream of traffic in the long term. I share Mr Paisley’s frustration regarding the position of the tram terminus. It would be so much better to drive, or take the bus, to the top of the town of Bushmills, visit the distillery, and then mount the tram and ride to the Giant’s Causeway. The return journey could be taken at leisure.
That would have the significant extra benefit of taking some traffic off the road between Bushmills and the Causeway. By not having located that facility at the top of the town — and there would undoubtedly be some difficulties in locating it there — you must therefore look at what can be done to enhance the potential for using the terminus at the foot of Bushmills. It could still perhaps be used as a preferred means of transporting people to the Causeway to reduce the strain on the narrow and restricted roads system that exists between those two locations.
We should consider the Glens of Antrim, particularly in the aftermath of foot-and-mouth disease. It would be wise to consult with people in the Lake District, where they have been far more successful hitherto than we have in encouraging people to use the walking facilities there. We do not have anything like the same number of rights of way and bridleways, although a substantial section of the Ulster Way goes through part of the Glens.
We have not addressed ourselves to the problem that while it is nice to walk 10 miles down the path, the trouble is that you must then walk 10 miles back. Other places have managed to address this problem quite well by having a shuttle bus service that will collect you from your destination and leave you back to where you parked your car. In New Zealand, a country I admire for the way in which it has achieved rural diversification, walkers’ huts are provided where full overnight accommodation facilities are available for a fee. This encourages people to take long walks because they do not have to carry as many items with them as they would do if they were expecting to pitch a tent and carry their own gas cylinders.
I do not want to delve too deeply into this, but these points illustrate some imaginative ideas that we could adopt to make better use of our resources. While hikers are not necessarily the biggest-spending visitors, it is surprising nonetheless how much some of them can spend along the way, especially if the right facilities are available to encourage them to dip into their wallets.
Having put some ideas further to those mentioned by Mr Paisley Jnr to the Minister, I conclude. I trust that the Minister and others will look at a wide variety of matters that must be addressed to produce a successful long-term strategy to enhance the tourist potential of North Antrim.

Sir Reg Empey: I am indebted to the Members for their contributions. Several ideas have been floated by both Members who spoke. Officials will note those ideas. I do not intend to respond to every matter, but both Members have made some good suggestions, and these will be taken up.
I want to first deal with the broad-brush approach. North Antrim contains some of the most dramatic and sensitive environments in Northern Ireland. Not surprisingly, the area is one of our most popular visitor destinations because of the world heritage site of the Giant’s Causeway. Given that visitors to the area not only benefit the local economy but also make an important contribution to the wider economy of Northern Ireland, it is essential that we take a long-term view of how the area is managed. We must ensure that the natural beauty is protected not only for its own sake but to ensure that future generations will benefit and that we will pass on to them an asset that we currently value and enjoy.
In the process we will help people and businesses to continue to derive economic benefit from visitors.
The development of the tourism industry in North Antrim, as elsewhere throughout Northern Ireland, has unfortunately been hindered in the past, largely as a result of the political unrest. It is not something that we should hide behind or ignore. We are confronted with it at the moment, and Members will know that the US Department of State recently issued a warning to its citizens. We have a very debilitating CNN international image at this time of year.
I must put this in the context of investment decisions, not simply by the public sector but by the private sector. We are attempting to improve our infrastructure, because we understand that there are gaps and weaknesses. It is a chicken-and-egg situation: we need the private sector to come forward with proposals and bankers and other institutions to offer investment resources so that we can assess them and decide whether we can assist them or not. In many cases people find great difficulty in persuading commercial banks and others to back people in that way.
We saw an upsurge in tourism in 1995, and Mr Paisley was using that as a baseline for many of the comparators, but people who then stepped forward and invested on the back of that soon discovered that their optimism was ill-founded. It is that legacy that we are dealing with. It is a huge problem for the tourism sector.
We must look to the long term and build up our expectations and infrastructure. We also have to build up the training and capability of those who are going to work in the tourism sector. It can no longer be regarded as a Cinderella industry, something that you do if you cannot do anything else. We must get past that. I have had discussions with my Colleague, the Minister for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, and he also feels strongly about this issue. We are taking initiatives to try to ensure that the industry has a supply of people with the skills particular to this industry. Tourism is no longer something you work at if you cannot do anything else.
We must raise the standards, because people can go anywhere in the world today. They do not have to come here; they can get on a plane and go virtually anywhere in a few hours. We have to develop and play to our strengths, and our strengths are not two weeks in the sun. Our strengths are natural resource-based tourism and the natural beauty of the Province. They include the hospitality and the welcome that people receive; our heritage; our ability to develop golf and fishing; the natural resources of our gardens and large historic homes; hunting; shooting; and other activities. We have many strengths, and we must play to those strengths.
There are more players in this than the Tourist Board and my Department. Local authorities and regional tourism organisations, partly funded by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, also have a role to play. They bring together a partnership of local authorities — the industry itself with the Tourist Board resources put in. However, ultimately, it also requires a degree of self-help.
The Causeway Coast and Glens area account for approximately 30% of the visitors who come to Northern Ireland, and that area has vast potential. It is also a huge slice of the cake and market share.
I agree with the other Members that there is potential for that to grow even further, and not only in numbers, as numbers alone do not necessarily produce the revenue. There must be an increase in the value of the product.
I agree that we have been losing out on day trips. Day trips are fine, but we know that many coach tours from the Republic call in and return home and spend the night in County Donegal or somewhere else. The currency differential makes some of our products uncompetitive; the Tourist Board has tried to overcome that, as has the industry, by doing pound-for-punt promotions. However, some coach operators have told me that they must wait until things settle down before they can sign up.
There is a need — and this comes under the regional development strategy with which Mr Paisley Jnr began his remarks — for destination facilities. I fully accept that. I recently met a developer who is proposing a very ambitious scheme in the area. The Member will know to whom I refer. That is the sort of product on which we must concentrate, because it is sympathetic to the area and, if developed properly, will not impinge unduly on the environment. It has the potential, if things work out, to be environmentally and financially sustainable. All these things, however, must be dealt with case by case. That sort of product can add value to an area without damaging its natural beauty and resources.
We come back time and time again to planning issues, and they are not dissimilar to those that we face in industrial development. I get the impression that our planning approach is more energetic than that of our competitors in the Republic, who seem to be able to get a more sympathetic hearing for their industries.
That leads me neatly to Members’ reference to Invest Northern Ireland and the Industrial Development Bill. We treat tourism as an industry and as a business. That is why we propose transferring the grant-aiding ability of the Tourist Board to Invest Northern Ireland so that any business, tourism or any other kind of industry, can go to where one set of skills is located. We hope that this will offer an enhanced service to the industry. It was the unanimous view of the board, and of the industry, that this step be taken. We are acting quickly to ensure that it is in place as early as possible next year.
There have been many funding interventions in the area over the years from the Tourist Board and European programmes. They have contributed significantly and will continue to do so. The same applies to International Fund for Ireland assistance. As for the joined-up approach, my Colleagues in the Departments of Agriculture and Rural Development and Culture, Arts and Leisure have a significant role to play. I have communicated regularly with them on various issues.
The motor sports proposal was mentioned, and that is a matter for Mr McGimpsey. In view of recent unfortunate casualties, a purpose-built facility with built-in safety measures may be an attractive proposition.
Members talked about the Bushmills railway, for which a special trust has been established. We do not own it. The Tourist Board is in a grant-aiding role in this instance. The project is at a very advanced stage, and we have allocated money to it, as have others. As with so many major infrastructure projects, the cost tends to run away from us. I have noted what both Members have said on this matter, and the Tourist Board will reflect on those points to see if there is any advice we can offer the trust that hopes to bring this project to fruition. Clearly there is some way to go yet on the financing of it, albeit substantial sums of money have been earmarked.
There is also the matter of getting the Glens back in business. There is no doubt that that area has suffered badly. The Member who brought this debate forward put it forward at the height of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, and he knows that my Department is currently administering the compensation facility to assist people.
We made special measures in the terms of reference to take account of the small-business people who may not be paying a business rate but yet have suffered. We decided that the way around that was to look at the domestic rate position of those people and to try to ensure that, if they were registered with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, they would be included in the scheme even if they were not paying a business rate. Many of them have experienced not simply a drop in business but an elimination of their business. That is extremely difficult for them to cope with, particularly at a time of year when the cash flow is at the minimum and they are perhaps investing in repairs and maintenance. The timing of events could not have been worse.
With regard to the North West 200, the Member knows that I fought the battle on that as best I could. I fully realised the extent to which the business in the area would suffer if it were cancelled. Unfortunately it was not possible to prevail over the advice from the veterinary experts, and we had to bow to the inevitable. However, we did our best to assist the local authority in the north-west when it came forward with a project to try to replace some of the business, and we were very happy to support that project.
I am acutely aware of the unemployment situation in the Moyle area, and I have visited the area on a number of occasions. One of the things that we are currently looking at — and Members will know this — is the ferry project. I am pleased to report that we are at a very advanced stage with the market testing of that. There does appear to be interest. The Scotland Office is looking at things at the present time, and we hope to be able to get some steer in the next few weeks as to whether we can attract operators at a rate of assistance that we believe to be reasonable. If we get through that stage, much will then depend on how we split the thing between the Scottish side and the Northern Ireland side. That, of course, is a separate issue that we would have to deal with as we go forward, but it is very important.
On the question of the visitor experience, I agree entirely that the satisfaction rating is good but could be a lot better — I fully accept that. That depends on a mixture of training and of ensuring that the people who invest believe that they have got a potentially profitable investment. That brings me back again to the chicken-and- egg situation I referred to with the question of political stability, and so on. If we did not have that problem, we would be much further advanced in developing an industry which would compare very well with the Lake District or anywhere else.
I believe, particularly with regard to the North Antrim area, that the assets and the potential are there. I have no doubt about that, and I have supported the concept of what I call "a string of pearls" — looking forward from the Campbeltown side right over into North Antrim and across into Limavady, and even into County Donegal with the various projects that are planned there. You could see how under the right circumstances you would have a very attractive product for the entire north-eastern area.
The north-east and surrounding areas spread beyond the parliamentary constituency. Nevertheless, the regional tourism organisation in that area is very active in developing its own strategy. Our role, of course, is not confined to developing strategy for the local area. That is the job of the local authorities in conjunction with the industry through the regional training organisation. We support them, but that has to be in the wider context of the strategy for Northern Ireland as a whole. It is beginning to clarify itself.
As we move forward, we begin to identify the type of product that we can develop. Enormous potential rests there. The potential to expand the tourist industry is greater than that in any other industry in Northern Ireland. The industry is operating at about one third of its capacity. I cannot think of any other industry where the potential for growth, job creation and wealth creation is greater.
There is a great deal at stake. We will have to work closely with the tourist industry. We will have to work to stabilise the political situation because that is one of the major problems. There is also the continuous currency difficulty to deal with. There is no doubt that continental holidays have become much more attractive or that Northern Ireland is up against stiff competition from the Republic of Ireland.
I assure Members that the points that they have made in the debate will be considered by the Tourist Board. If Members feel that any points require attention by letter, I will be pleased to follow those up in due course.
Adjourned at 7.27 pm